John I prefer to call it a "leak test", not a hydro when discussing 13-D.
Best Bruce > On Mar 15, 2016, at 03:06, John Drucker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Steve, all.... > > 13D, "Dwelling" ?, No it's 13D, "Down and Dirty" !. Agree with Steve 110%, > please stop with the Waterflow talk, FDC's, 200 psi Hydros, Interconnection > with Smoke Alarms, Listed Fire Pumps and whatever else you can dream up to > out price these systems. 13D is like 72 smoke alarms, meant to be > inexpensive. Like smoke alarms on a lighting circuit, sprinklers on domestic > utility water supply, well water, storage tank, whatever you have. Everyone's > worried about what if it doesn't work, smoke alarms occasionally don't work > either, power out batteries dead, but they do far more good then harm. But > only if THEY GET INSTALLED IN THE FIRST PLACE. > > Now that that's said, about PE signed and sealed. First unless it's part of > an MEP package we know it's little more than a cash cow for many PE's. > Fortunately in New Jersey it falls under the realm of Shop Drawings whereby > the Design Professional, typically the architect, simple submits a letter to > the AHJ stipulating he/she has reviewed same. Since the architect is directly > responsible to the client for cost he/she has skin in the game. > > It's not self certification, the AHJ still has to review and sign off. Which > brings me to another topic you 13D committee members CAN DO, please come up > with a standardized summary page that contains all the information in an easy > "down and dirty" format and require everyone including the hydraulic software > folks, to use. The only thing that's different in my world is the address, so > please lay out the summary page the same way across the board so I can look > in the same spots for the information I need to get the system approved and > permitted quickly. > > Last but not least New Jersey took a huge step with the 2015 IRC/NJ Edition. > Please take a look at our section R300. Had an architect in yesterday, showed > him R300, to which he said "interesting, when did you guys change that" ? > Now sprinkler folks, don't muck it up. > > Ok time to go, 13D hydro in an hour or so, system operating pressure please > there's no and never will be an FDC at this location. Then back to the office > to contact a large sprinkler ITM company whos punched a 13D system as > deficient because there's no waterflow bell...arghh. > > John Drucker > Assistant Construction Official > Fire Protection Subcode Official > Building/Fire/Electrical Inspector > Red Bank, New Jersey > Cell/Text 732-904-6823 > > > > > > Rod DiBona <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 applica ti > o >> 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 st at > e >> 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 $300-40 0 > 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
