Tom,
To echo some of the things Ron mentioned, I'm well aware that there are
plan reviewers with a lack of understanding of the topic they're working on.
One of the things I found very appropriate in the certification process
as a "Certified Fire Plan Examiner" from NFPA was that you had to
actually go over a set of plans and find various problems, and develop a
laundry list of what had to be fixed. It doesn't cover all things, but
it does force those attaining it to read the standard a few more times,
similar to NICET, and to demonstrate to someone else that they can read
and interpret a set of plans, and those are very good things indeed.
The NFPA-1031 model (I'm Ron's alternate on that committee) contains an
excellent series of skills and tasks which one must be accomplished in
before achieving the next level. Very good starting point, however my
belief is that nothing is as good a teacher as experience.
The other issue that I have/had with reviewers is those working in an
area where they have no understanding of the issues. As an example, a
very good residential designer client of mine submitted a set of SFD
plans to a local AHJ who did not have an ordinance requiring such
dwellings to be sprinklered, and consequently had no one who was very
familiar with NFPA-13D to review the plans. They had a reviewer who had
come to the fresh from FM Global do the review, and it came back to my
friend with enough red marks to make it look - as you said - as though
he'd opened an artery over the sheet.
Two of the comments which stood out in my mind were: "A pump supplying a
fire sprinkler system must be installed with a fire pump controller,
pressure maintenance pump, and the fire pump must be listed for such
service."; and "You must provide calculations to show that the proper
flow and pressure occur for the single upright commercial sprinkler in
the attic, as all commercial sprinklers, no matter their spacing,
require higher pressure and greater flow than residential sprinklers."
The meeting to resolve this review, in the presence of his supervisor
unfortunately, was not a pleasant experience, particularly for him.
Please let us know how this comes out for you, and to follow up on what
Ron said, I've got a couple of those alphabets after my name as well, so
anything I can do to help, let me know.
Good luck!
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website
Ron Greenman wrote:
Tom,
Don't know about licensing in your state but in Washington we license
the crap out of everybody except the permit runner and the plans
reviewer. Wet stamps required by certified people on every sheet and a
review by the dog catcher or last week's tailboard rider. Of course we
have oodles of highly competent reviewers and I make no disparaging
remarks against them but there's some who have trouble distinguishing
Shineola from the other stuff (a reference for the aged amongst you)
or, to get back to an earlier thread from this week, a hired gun
charging by the word. There are model standards and certifications for
plan reviewers published by IFSTA and in NFPA 1031 that some
jurisdictions adhere to but that's on a case by case basis as far as I
know. The Air Force follows the 1031 model and has both a principle
and alternate on the committee as does AFSA (that would be me) and
NFSA (my friend Dominick Kass) so we're trying to promote the concept.
Most jurisdictions that do require or encourage certification for
their plan reviewers tend towards the IFSTA standard. Both models have
their particular advantages
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
