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 applicati 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 stat 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 >$300-400 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
