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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of firstin--- via Sprinklerforum Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 4:45 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; 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 > <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don’t get it. It’s not off a home well. > > > >> On Nov 18, 2019, at 20:24, firstin--- via Sprinklerforum >> <[email protected]> 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 >>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>> [email protected] >>>> 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 >>> [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
