I enjoyed your Presentation at the Phoenix Chapter ASPE Meeting today.  Thanks for the info. 

New Hampshire Adopting 2009 IRC With The Residential Fire Sprinkler Requirement

This also would be a good topic for an article that can be publish on http://www.ResidentialFireSprinklers.com

An example inquiry that came in is noted below:

I was writing to inquire concerning any information or articles that your organization might have access to, concerning California (and other states) legislation low-lead requirements in drinking water systems from which residential fire sprinkler systems are supplied. Has anyone received any info concerning exceptions for Fire protection systems or if it is possible to isolate Firie protection from drinking water in an acceptable manner so as to meet low-lead requirements?

The new endorsement will allow a Journeyman or Master Plumber who holds the endorsement to install multipurpose residential fire protection sprinkler systems in one or two family dwellings, in accordance with NFPA 13D.  The proposed changes provides for a training program based on multipurpose system subject matter from NFPA 13D and consistent with the installer training criteria of ASSE 7000.

There are also specific requirements for course providers and course trainers.  See “Rule Section 363.11 Endorsement Training Programs” for details.

I am working with Nancy Jones, Executive Director of PHCC-TX, regarding a train-the-trainer program for their instructors.  I will provide more details on the opportunity with PHCC-TX in a separate post in the Educational Content Production Forum.

In Virginia, Fire Marshal James Dawson offered the following:

From: Dawson, Robby [mailto:DawsonJ@chesterfield.gov]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: Mandatory Fire Sprinkler Update

 

We are actively working on this in a couple of areas.

 

First, I believe the approval of the change at this point is not appropriate and marginally illegal based on the DHCD Notice of Intended Regulatory Action posted in March. The first effort is to remove the change from the proposed regulations, then continue to work on educating the DHCD board and others on the issue as well as developing design freedoms that will offset the cost of the systems.

 

We have established a Virginia Residential Sprinkler Coalition made up of the state's fire service organizations and building official's organizations. There is still some disagreement between the two factions, but we are working through the issues.

 

I'm hoping to get as many local governmental agencies on board to include board of supervisors/town council resolutions to support the sprinkler provisions. Education seems to be the key, and I've offered to speak at anything from college campuses to dog catcher's meetings in order to spread the word. If you know of any opportunities out there, I would be willing to travel within reason.

 

I've attached a letter that outlines the larger issue I plan on dealing with as we get into the July DHCD meeting. Feel free to distribute to spread the word.

 

Let me know how you think you may be able to support, we need all the help we can get. It is an uphill battle if you look at the background of the members of the DHCD board - builders and developers mostly.

 

RD

 

Battalion Chief James Dawson
Fire Marshal
Chesterfield Fire and EMS
Office (804) 717-6838
Mobile (804) 387-0346

Click the following to view Chief Dawson's Letter to the Board of Housing and Community Development.

Charlie Stewart is an activist in the state on a number of pro sprinkler issues and has taken the lead to submit an appeal to the Board of Water on this issue.

To view his letter to the board, along with his supporting arguments, see "South Carlonia Board of Water Backflow Appeal"

Here is an opportunity for new business for PHCC of Nevada plumbers:

I just got off the phone with the state fire marshal and I now have the information you need about the proper procedure to become eligible to install residential fire sprinklers. We are looking into this because the new international residential code for 2009 requires that all new single family residences have sprinklers. There are two different procedures, one for those with a full C1 license and one for those with a C1D.

So first, let's take those of you with a full C1 license.

You have to pay a company fee to the state fire marshal of $440 per year;

At least one someone in the company has to pay $71.50 to take their test (and then $33.00 a year to renew it); this will give you what is called a J card or Certificate of Registration; the test is given monthly in Las Vegas (except May and June) at SimplexGrinell (1545 Pama Lane, Las Vegas, NV 89119, (702) 739-1921)); the test is based on NFPA 13d/13r and the state Admin Code (available online at http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nac.....c-477.html); there must be one person on each site where sprinklers are being installed with a J Card.

Second, if you have only a C1D license, you must first get a C1B and then do all of what's listed above with the state fire marshal. The C1B can be obtained through the Nevada State Contractors Board. Go to http://www.nvcontractorsboard......cation.pdf for the forms and application information needed to get this license.

If there is enough interest, PHCC of Nevada is planning to offer classes to help you prepare for the fire marshal's exam. Please be sure to let us know if you are interested in this. It is predicted that if the local jurisdictions approve the requirement for sprinklers in residential buildings (and we believe they will) that there will be a strong demand for qualified people to install the systems when the requirement takes effect Jan. 1 of 2011. Let me know if you have any questions.

 I have that document and am trying to figure out how to attach to this post.

Please email me the document and I will have it uploaded to the server so we can add a link to it.  Thank you.

UPDATE: Links to the documents have now been added to Terri's post above.

AB660 - LAST HIST. ACT. DATE:  03/23/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION   :  Referred to Coms. on  G.O. and  B. & P. (Gov't. Organization and Business & Professions)
COMM. LOCATION :  ASM GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

SB405 - LAST HIST. ACT. DATE:  03/12/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION   :  To Com. on  B., P. & E.D.
COMM. LOCATION :  SEN BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
HEARING DATE :  04/20/2009

SB405 (Cogdill) - authored by the CA Chapters of the AFSA.  The bill came about as a response to last year's Union sponsored AB2288.  UPDATE - Click the following for the AB2288 Fact Sheet.  The goal when the bill was drafted was to have an offense ready this year, in the event the Union came back with a bill in the 2009 cycle (which they did, AB660).

AB660 (Torrico) - authored by Randy Roxson, representing the CA Sprinkler Fitters Assn., which is a group of the Local 709, 483 and 669 Sprinkler Fitter's Unions.  Alberto Torrico (D) is the Assemby Majority Leader and he is running for CA Attorney General.  Torrico is very good friends with Stan Smith, the head of the Local 483 in the Bay Area.

My “sources” on high tell me they don't want either bill.  They wish to proceed with the Coaltion approach as put together by myself and Bruce LeCair (NFSA) - the “CA Fire Sprinkler Coalition”.  I have that document and am trying to figure out how to attach to this post.  UPDATE - Click the following for California Fire Sprinkler Certification Act document and California Fire Sprinkler Coalition Strategic Plan. 

The CA OSFM has begun the process of preparing the State for the implementation of the 2009 IRC, the first step being the Water Purveyor task group I spoke of yesterday.  That group just completed its work and will be releasing a report soon.  The next group takes the pipe “into the house” - and its first meeting is scheduled in Sacramento on April 6th.  I believe that the CA OSFM will address the issue of fitter training, when the Coalition gets to that step.  Tonya Hoover (Asst. SFM) is a very close friend of mine and she has asked for my help in getting both sides to “back away”.   This is all confidential information.

If either bill is passed, which I believe is very unlikely, the process to change the training requirements in the bill, becomes very difficult.   It will limit the ability of our industry to respond quickly to a changing marketplace.

Residential Fire Sprinkler Mandates Create Industry Tension

California is one of many states that are mandating the installation of fire sprinklers in new residential construction, beginning in 2011. This change has been a long time coming, and is the result of a massive public relations campaign that stresses the affordability of residential systems coupled with the need for improved fire safety.

It is the official position of the U.S. Fire Administration (part of FEMA) “that all Americans should be protected against death, injury, and property loss resulting from fire in their residences. All homes should be equipped with smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers, and families should prepare and practice emergency escape plans.”

This new mandate was established by a “super majority” vote last September of code officials representing the International Residential Code (IRC), and has already set off turf battles over which contractors will be able to install residential systems in California. California License Law has a special section (Business & Professions Code 7026.12) that states “the installation of a fire protection system, excluding an electrical alarm system, shall be performed only by a contractor holding a fire protection contractor classification as defined in the regulations of the board”. There is an exclusion in the law for owner-builders with restrictions - but plumbing contractors (classification C-36) are not currently allowed to perform the installations without holding a supplemental C-36 license.

New Legislation Calls for New Restrictions

A couple of new bills have appeared this year that would create additional restrictions on fire protection work. Assembly Bill 660 (Torrico) would create a comprehensive program for the certification and regulation of sprinkler fitters, and would prohibit a person or entity from employing a person to perform work on a fire suppression system unless the workers holds a valid sprinkler fitter or limited scope sprinkler fitter certificate issued by the State Fire Marshal. In past years, the office of the State Fire Marshal attempted to pass legislation that would have required fire protection contractors (C-16) to also hold a license issued by the State Fire Marshal.

Another bill, Senate Bill 405 (Cogdill) would require every contractor licensed by the state as a C-16 contractor to employ at least one fire sprinkler supervisor for the purpose of supervising fire sprinkler installation on any project undertaken by the contractor that requires that installation. The bill would also require the contractor to implement a fire protection training program for employees that are involved with the installation of fire sprinkler systems.

These two bills have one important element in common - they are designed to affect specifically contractors who hold C-16 licenses, but do not exclusively install fire protection systems - for instance, plumbing contractors. It is more than likely, in this disastrous economy, that combination C-36/C-16 contractors are bidding more C-16 work in order to survive, thus the exclusive C-16 contractors would like to create impediments to the market. Even more likely is that the “new” residential market created by the 2011 residential fire sprinkler mandate will compel plumbing contractors to apply for a C-16 license that they did not previously want or need to hold in order to contract for all of the piping work in new residential construction.

PHCC and Builders Need to Work Together

The PHCC Legislative Committee sees a need to establish a strong working relationship with home builders to assure that the new code requirements can be implemented without corresponding increases in unnecessary regulations that will increase the cost of housing. The construction industry answer to this new code requirement should be in a measured, thoughtful dialogue that will consider safe, quality installation by competent contractors working under justifiable licensing and certification regulations.

PHCC will oppose AB 660 and SB 405, but will work with the entire industry to design alternatives that will accomplish the safety objectives of the proponents of the bills without jeopardizing the rights of competent, existing residential contractors.

To view a copy of SB 405 click on the following link - California SB 405

The Fire Smarts Forum is designed for those responsible for fire protection systems to access expert fire protection knowledge.  We have found that many members of the fire protection community, both public and private, run into situations where help from an expert is needed.  It may be a simple confirmation that they are making a correct interpretation or it may one of those “unusual” situations that require some guidance on what to do next. 

Registration

Become a registered user of the Fire Smarts Fourm by clicking here. There is no charge to be a registered user and you will have read-only access to most areas of the site.  In order to post questions and contribute to the discussion you will need to become a Fire Smarts Member.

Membership

As a Fire Smarts Member you have access to post questions and receive informal answers on the Fire Smarts Forum from our expert team of Fire Smarts Faculty members.  When needed, written responses on letterhead are available for a modest additional charge.

Forum Access

If you are viewing this forum without logging in, you are considered a Guest and have very limited access to the forum.  For read-only access to most areas of the site you can become a registered user for free by clicking here.  Full Access to the Fire Smarts Forum is available to Fire Smarts Members.

Content

The Fire Smarts Forum is considered a professional environment. Explicit language, abusive and hurtful behavior, defamation of character, personal attacks, or inappropriate images will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to remove any offensive material and action may be taken to prevent further offenses. Defamation of character and public personal attacks will result in banning.

Advertising

The purpose of the Fire Smarts Forum is to enable fire protection knowledge.  Therefore, we DO NOT allow participants to advertise their business or products in the discussion forums. This prevents the forum from becoming cluttered with “billboards” and ensures that a professional discussion about fire protection systems can take place.

Participants are allowed to place a personal or business link in their signatures only.  If advertisements are posted, they will be removed.

If you would like to have your business/website featured on the Fire Smarts Forum or other Fire Smarts websites please contact us using this contact form for more information.