I think the whole thing is backwards! Residential should be mandatory (public safety) and comercial/industrial optional, the owners decision (basic life safety with no trade-offs vs insurance premium/value vs risk. So to me the most attention should be paid to Residential. But having read some 'history of fire protection' I noticed reading transcripts of tech. committee meetings in the early 1900s, the members being engineers/fire underwriters, the owner's pocketbook was a prime consideration. Fast forward 100 years and it is easy to see how the more sprinklers became mandatory the more 'conservative' the TC members could AFFORD to be. I have no doubt the same thing will happen with Residential. On Mar 14, 2016 4:25 PM, "Cahill, Christopher" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I agree with ya'll too but I can see where regulators are not satisfied > with the overall state of the sprinkler industry. To be brutally honest > it's a mess. As an example, I've seen 5 fire pumps this past year that > were installed in the last 10 years with piping entering the pump is off > axis. THEY DREW A FRIGGIN' PICTURE IN THE BOOK! Don't tell me NICET's are > the solution either. Recently a IV sent in plans without a single pipe on > the plan. It wasn't an accident as the plans said they'd show them with > the as-built set. I was 1/2 tempted to allow and then see what happens at > final when it wouldn't calc out. > > That said all PE's or contactors are not created equal and I don't have a > real solution. I don't mean to start a contractor vs. engineer discussion. > There are plenty of engineers that aren't any better than the contractors. > > Granted my experiences are not 13D but I can see unhappy AHJ's throwing > out the baby with the bath water and require PE's on everything. > Ordinarily, PE's don't need to be involved with 13D's. Read your State > sprinkler rules carefully. For example in MN there was a time the State FM > and sprinkler licensing rules didn't apply to single family homes and they > were regulated as plumbing systems. I say there was a time because I live > here but don't do work in MN so things may have changed. > > Chris Cahill, PE* > Associate Fire Protection Engineer > Burns & McDonnell > Phone: 952.656.3652 > Fax: 952.229.2923 > [email protected] > www.burnsmcd.com > *Registered in: MN > > I'm not cantankerous I just express myself vividly. - Antonin Scalia > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 3:50 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Friday PE Question > > Put me down as a FIRM supporter of what Steve said below.. Appreciate you > taking the time to write it out Steve - absolute bullseye.... > > > > My opinion only from Rod at Rapid Fire - Not representing an opinion of > AFSA... > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Friday PE Question > > 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 applicatio > 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 state > 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 > _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
