When I say I don’t get it, I mean I don’t get why someone wants a full flow test for a two head system.
> On Nov 19, 2019, at 08:01, Steve Leyton via Sprinklerforum > <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: > > Owen: > > How long did you work as a fire official? More than a couple years if I'm > not mistaken, so I assume in that time you had correspondence with one or > more water purveyors, correct? There are several factors here that do not > serve the community but DO serve the water company. The cost to the > customer is onerous and simply adds to the cost of the fire sprinkler system, > which is 180° contrary to the State Fire Marshal's mission that the costs of > residential sprinkler systems be closely managed at every turn. The > information generated is superfluous as we don't need the residual at a high > fire flow. For their sake, they generate a certain amount of revenue and > get to exercise one or more hydrants so they're essentially covering the > costs of what used to be overhead (assuming they actually exercised the > hydrants on their system historically). > > So you can do two things: 1) Roll up your sleeves and be part of the > solution or, 2) Wave your hands wildly and complain in a loud voice about > the injustice of it all. Having exercised #2 already, I implore you to try > #1. First, verify with the serving fire department that Static - 10% is > acceptable to them for SFD submittals. Then, craft a flow test curve and > show the two points provided by the water purveyor and add a point where the > flow rate of the residential sprinkler system falls right next to the static > on that curve. Write a cover letter addressed to the director of > engineering for the water purveyor explaining how Static - 10% will provide > an accurate basis for these systems and that such a practice is acceptable to > the serving fire department(s) and asking them to change their policy. > Emphasize that the added cost goes against best practices and intentions and > is contrary to the overarching mission of raising the level of fire/life > safety in the residential built environment. Then send it to the DOE with > CC copies to the Director (if public) or the President/CEO/COO (if private) > or General Manager of the water purveyor. Also copy the serving fire > marshals. > > Be part of the solution. > > Steve Leyton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] > On Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum > Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:45 AM > To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > Cc: firs...@aol.com; Bruce Verhei > Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement > > Bruce, > 13D allows calculations to be developed from static pressure only when the > system is being supplied from a reliable water supply like a municipal > system. Because the demand of a 13D system is so minimal (26 gpm, two heads > flowing) a water supply curve developed from a flow test (static, residual, > and flow) is not required. The water company charges $600 to perform a flow > test. Our forefathers developed the 13D standard to be a minimal system to > keep the cost down to reduce the resistance from developers and > municipalities. A flow test for a 13D system is monumental waist of time and > money. But try and explain that to the new inspector (who has all the power > yet very little knowledge and training) who is just passing through on the > promotional track. Very frustrating. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum >> <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: >> >> I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well. >> >> >> >>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum >>> <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: >>> >>> The water purveyor does the test at a cost of $600 plus the delay waiting >>> for it to get done. >>> >>> We all know how things can evolve over time as people in different >>> positions come and go. Since 1991, up until now, the procedure was the >>> water purveyor provided the static pressure at the proposed job site. This >>> was the third party verification for the development of the calculations by >>> the installing contractor. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:02 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum >>>>> <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Do you have to perform the test or do they do it? >>>> >>>> Mark at Aero >>>> 602 820-7894 >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Nov 18, 2019, at 8:57 PM, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum >>>>> <sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Need advice on the best way to fight a non required requirement. >>>>> Someone at the local water purveyor came up the the great idea to require >>>>> a full blown flow test for ALL proposed SFR fire sprinkler systems at a >>>>> cost of $600 each. The vast majority of water mains that run down >>>>> residential streets are 6”. There are a few 4” and that’s the smallest. >>>>> Who on Gods green earth thinks that two residential heads flowing could >>>>> over-run the municipal water supply, therefore, a flow test is required >>>>> to develop supply curve, really? >>>>> Am I missing something or is this requirement BS and nothing but a money >>>>> grab? >>>>> Owen Evans >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__lists.firesprinkler.org_listinfo.cgi_sprinklerforum-2Dfiresprinkler.org&d=DwIGaQ&c=wn3mZQLIuInh2ClcJ0_DIA&r=dLwiR71i_XhSFqam3ZLeaFLiQJ3cDTUB0ReB4-yDDcg&m=iTziAtPF_lY685hJJ1vizDq1HKIibaCtX8p-L4yPSn0&s=RhKF9rf4aehsyLX_SomSwPubAxSKV3Vg9T4eFISBSDw&e= >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
