CT requires either a PE stamp or designer's stamp (state issued
certification
with a NICET III or IV requirement) on all sprinkler drawings, regardless
of
criteria. Consequently, I have stamped 13D systems. It is overkill if you
are
dealing with experienced and ethical designers. Otherwise, maybe not. As
far as
3rd party review, I would rather see that than have an AHJ with little
knowledge
of sprinkler systems start making stuff up.
Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT
860-535-2080 (ofc) 860-608-4559 (cell)
Sent using CloudMagic
[https://cloudmagic.com/k/d/mailapp?ct=ti&cv=6.0.64&pv=8.2]
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Bruce Verhei <[email protected]> wrote:
WA State requires a level I certification from the state FM's office
prepare or
supervise preparing of plans. Either NICET II or take state test. State
test
would require much less prep time for person with adequate reading and math
skill.
Not normally third party. Only exception I remember is when sprinkler
company's
owner had heart attack. Another company looked over and put cert stamp on
plans
for a short time. His spouse studied up and passed test in a couple months.
I've never seen a PE stamp on 13-D plans. If I ever did I guess I'd look to
see
if it was for their own home.
Best
Bruce
Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 12:10, Steve Leyton <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> I'm not a fire official so my perspective is purely from the industry
side of
the counter. I am stridently opposed to this level of documentation because
there isn't any value added for the cost of the services. The number one
challenge to adoption of the fire sprinkler code change nationwide has been
objection and highly organized lobbying by the NAHB. The number one reason
they
give to underscore their opposition is cost: housing is already so
expensive
that home ownership is seeming out of reach of many American families and
adding
this onerous requirement is just another burden to the prospective buyer of
the
home. Never mind that the actual costs are exaggerated or comparatively low
compared to other elements in a new home (like upgraded windows, flooring,
etc.), this strategy has been working very well for the opposition. Based
on my
25+ years of advocacy and public speaking and code development work in the
effort to effect universal adoption and applicat
io
> n of the residential sprinkler mandate, I have arrived at a point of
view that
looks VERY closely at any added costs that don't add to the life safety or
overall value of a proposed residential sprinkler system.
>
> To that end, I have consistently opposed the proposals to add mandatory
waterflow alarms to 13D that we receive every cycle. I'm not opposed to
notification, but we already have that by way of the required smoke
detectors,
which are likely to work faster than the sprinklers anyway. What I oppose
is the
added cost: In 2008, NFPA published a residential sprinkler "white paper"
that
estimated the average cost of sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings
nationwide to be $1.61. The CPI has risen 9.77% since then, so let's use
$1.77
as a cost per discussion. If we do, then a 2,000 sq. ft. home costs about
$3,500
to sprinkler. In adding an audible alarm, the flow switch, bell, backing
box and
cable likely cost about $150 and the installation and testing likely cost
about
$200 for the electrician and sprinkler installer so you have ROUGHLY $350
in
added costs and BOOM! You just added 10% to the cost of the sprinkler
system and
NAHB just went running off to your sta
te
> legislature to harp on the fact that our industry doesn't care about
homeless
people ...
>
> So when it comes to FPE preparation of or 3rd party review of 13D
designs, I
have to wonder why? What's the point, what are we trying to "fix", where's
the
value or added measure of safety? In my long career in the fire sprinkler
and
general fire/life safety industries, I have only met a very few FPE's who
are as
expert at sprinkler design as the average NICET-certified sprinkler layout
technician. I have met or seen the work of or heard anecdotally about
dozens of
rubber stamp FPE's and ME's who robo-sign drawings for a fee and it's
regulatory
layers like this that keep them in business. Here's the dirty little
secret:
residential sprinklers aren't rocket science. More importantly, the market
value
of the work isn't at the level of aerospace engineering so we can't price
any of
the work as if it was rocket science. If an FPE wanted even a two-hour fee
to
review and sign a set of sprinkler drawings (and presumably calc's and a
material submittal), that's $300-400
i
> n the North American market. And another 10% added to the cost of the
system.
I reiterate the question: What does this fix that's currently broken?
>
> Put me down as a NO, Jerry. My opinion only, not representative of the
AUT-RSS, NFPA or AFSA.
>
> Steve Leyton
> Protection Design & Consulting
> San Diego, CA
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sprinklerforum
[mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of [email protected]
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 2:55 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Friday PE Question
>
> Good Afternoon, All:
>
> By chance, do any of you know of any Fire Departments/Fire Marshals
Offices
(i.e., city, county, state agencies) that currently require a third-party
PE
review/seal of single-family dwelling (13'D') fire sprinkler system "shop"
drawings/calc's?? If so, please advise...If not, your thoughts/input would
be
appreciated.
>
> Gracias from Nuevo Mejico!!
>
> Jerry
> [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])
>
> Jerry D. Watts, M.S.F.P.E.
> President & Co-Founder
> ACCENT FIRE ENGINEERING INT'L. Ltd.*
> Santa Fe, New Mexico USA
> (800) 503.1961 nationwide
>
> *Licensed Architects - Fire Protection Engineers/NICET Designers/NICET
> Inspectors/Fire Investigators: AZ CA CO NM NV NY TX UT KS MD MS
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
>
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
