Review: The water purveyor, after 19 years of providing static pressure only for the development of 13D calculations, is now requiring a fire flow test for 13D systems at a cost of $600.00. I emailed and asked the operations manager for the water purveyor to provide me the justification for the change. He emailed back and said: "Our internal engineering management team and the City's building department determined that static pressure only was inadequate for official fire sprinkler calculation purpose". (mouth hanging open) I contacted the fire, building, engineering, and planning departments, they all denied agreeing to such a change. I emailed the Division Chief for the fire prevention bureau (who is brand spanking new in his position) about this issue. He emailed back and said; "NFPA 13D section 10.1.2 allows for static pressure only when from a 4" or larger main. NFPA does not mandate this method nor does it exclude the more restrictive and costly flow testing". YES! He said that! The Division Chief is out of the office until Monday. I hope to speak with him then. In the meantime I'm dumbfounded wondering how to deal with this problem. I feel like I'm dealing with Harry and Lloyd. Well, I thought you all would find this entertaining. Happy Thanksgiving and safe travels to all. Owen Evans
-----Original Message----- From: firstin--- via Sprinklerforum <[email protected]> To: sprinklerforum <[email protected]> Cc: firstin <[email protected]>; Bruce Verhei <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Nov 19, 2019 2:38 pm Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Not required, requirement Ha! I was wondering. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 19, 2019, at 2:23 PM, Bruce Verhei via Sprinklerforum > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 >> <[email protected]> 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:[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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
