# Colorado HB 1142



## fatboy (Feb 10, 2010)

A new bill introduce in the Colorado House would require that anyone working on fire sprinklers be certified by the state. A minimum of 8000 hrs training, in a maximum of 5 years, a few other requirements. What this would do is effectivelly eliminate the possibility of a licensed plumber installing a less costly RFS system in compliance with P2904.

A.......can we all say, union pushed????? If we are going to have RFS's, then let's make sure it can be done as economically as possible, not stack the deck from the beginning. Sheesh.......

JMHO   :x

Link to the bill;

http://www.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2 ... 241_01.pdf


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

Get on your legislators and educate them.  However, I think plumbers will need training on fire sprinklers...now figure out how much and who's keeping track.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

There is no excuse for allowing marginally trained persons to install sprinklers.

If it saves just one life, it's worth it.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

I never said that plumbers won't need training to install a P2904 system, but it sure won't take a union man with 8000 hours of training to install a RFS system.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> I never said that plumbers won't need training to install a P2904 system, but it sure won't take a union man with 8000 hours of training to install a RFS system.


I don't think the bill requires the installer to be a member of the union, just minimally trained.

Surely if it saves just one life...


----------



## peach (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

8000 hours to install a residential sprinker system?

for everyone.. or just a "plumber"

there are hundreds of fire sprinkler contractors out there, and I guarantee that their installers don't have 8000 hours experience.

The master in charge maybe?

I don't get it.


----------



## TJacobs (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

Sounds like a combination of training and experience similar to a 5-year plumbing apprenticeship.  My plumbing inspector said he did 2 days a week at school (during a typical 9-month public school year) with the rest work experience to be an Illinois licensed plumber.

School = 1,440 hours

Work = 3,648 hours

Total = 5,088 hours

Now, figure out how much additional training and experience would be needed if you add residential sprinklers to the curriculum.  I doubt it's 3,000 hours additional...


----------



## fatboy (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

"Surely if it saves just one life..."

brudger, drop it already, I'm not going to get drawn into the merits of the requirement, like it or not it's there, it's a fact.

In Colorado, a licensed plumber has already put their time in, and has the minimum quaifications to work on plumbing systems. P2904 is an extension of an IRC plumbing system. A little extra pipe and a head in most rooms, yes with a little training, I don't think a plumber will struggle with it.

8000 hrs in 5 yrs of specific training to install a P2904 system is ridiculous, and you know it.


----------



## brudgers (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> "Surely if it saves just one life..."brudger, drop it already, I'm not going to get drawn into the merits of the requirement, like it or not it's there, it's a fact.
> 
> In Colorado, a licensed plumber has already put their time in, and has the minimum quaifications to work on plumbing systems. P2904 is an extension of an IRC plumbing system. A little extra pipe and a head in most rooms, yes with a little training, I don't think a plumber will struggle with it.
> 
> 8000 hrs in 5 yrs of specific training to install a P2904 system is ridiculous, and you know it.


I don't think it's particularly ridiculous...and I think your bigger issue has more to do with unions than the amount of training.

I'm sure the financial justifications for sprinklers look a lot better if you allow them to be installed by any old jackleg with a pickup.


----------



## D a v e W (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

Who's drawing the sprinkler plan? Who reviews it, fire department? (here they do)

These system are typically plastic, no special training needed to cut and measure piping, drill holes, glue together, support where neccessary, big concern is head located per plan, place on test. Not that big of a deal, except 8000 hours.

Who's doing installs currently, plumbers?

When California went to a separate lic requirements, all C-36 plumbing contractor were asked if they would like this license. If I remember hours were not mentioned, however a list few other things were. I think that was back in around 1987. Maybe someone remembers more from that era     Brains getting worn out....

Who inspect the system?

More questions.....


----------



## fatboy (Feb 10, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

"I'm sure the financial justifications for sprinklers look a lot better if you allow them to be installed by any old jackleg with a pickup."

I was hoping for some intelligent exchanges on this........obviously brudgers can't read.

Dave,

We are not doing any installs right now, we haven't had any townhouses, and SFD's don't kick in until 1/1/11. The way the P2904 requirement is laid out, the plumber would do the design, unless others were invited. Plan review would be up to the AHJ........not necessarilly a requirement. Although for me, until it was proven a particular plumber had the necessary training and knowledge to design a system, I would want to look at his design prior to the install. Building Inspectors would inspect, we work with our Fire Marshall's office.


----------



## incognito (Feb 11, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

The pipefitter unions are falling over themselves to support RFSs' and keep the plumbers out of it. I wonder if it could be the obscene profits they see on the horizon that all of a sudden have them supporting RFSs'? Nah, I am sure they are in it to protect Joe Homeowner.


----------



## D a v e W (Feb 11, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

Installation for system right now average $2-4 per sq ft, cannot wait to see the cost after its mandatory. Has shades of auto insurance when liability was made mandatory :roll:  I predict $8-10 a square foot or higher.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 11, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

A system that is as critical to life safety as a sprinkler system should be installed under the supervision of a qualified professional.  8,000 hours is not that much experience as previously pointed out.  To say the sprinklers are just plastic pipe and fitting is like saying electrical is just wires and devices and plumbing is only $hit goes down and stink goes up.  Each trade has its special needs and it is not unreasonable to expect that someone putting in a life safety system, plimbing, or electrical system be qualified.  BTW, I never commented on the lengthy threads of RFS so I am not resusitating either dog in that fight.


----------



## Min&Max (Feb 11, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

8000 hours = 3.8 years of employment @40hrs per week.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

"8000 hours = 3.8 years of employment @40hrs per week."

Exclusivelly as a sprinkler fitter.......which was my point, excessive requirement for a plumber to perform an installation of a P2904 RFS.

But then in CO, the proposed sprinkle fitters wouldn't be allowed to install a multi-purpose P2904, as they would have to be a licensed plumber, so they would have to install a stand-alone system.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

It would make more sense for Plumbing Contractors and plumbers to be required to obtain Fire Sprinkler Training & Endorsement Certifcation for the installation of Fire Sprinkler Systems.

Example:  Texas requires a Medical Gas Piping Endorsement; for plumbers to install and Inspectors to inspect, medical gas piping;

Sec. 1301.356. ENDORSEMENT: MEDICAL GAS PIPING INSTALLATION.

(a) A person may not install pipe used solely to transport gas for medical purposes or a vacuum used for medical purposes unless the person:

(1) is licensed under this chapter as a master plumber or journeyman plumber; and

(2) holds an endorsement issued under this section.

(b) A person is eligible to receive a medical gas piping installation endorsement if the person performs satisfactorily on a separate examination related to the endorsement.

© An endorsement under this section is valid for three years and may be renewed as provided by board rule.

(d) An endorsement under this section coincides with rules adopted by the Texas Department of Health.

(e) A plumbing inspector who meets the requirements of the board may inspect medical gas piping installations.

The same should be required for Fire Sprinkler Systems.

Uncle Bob


----------



## incognito (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

From the residential systems I have seen it would appear that a plumber is more than capable of doing the installation. The design and head location should probably be done by someone who is qualified/certified to do so.


----------



## Coug Dad (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

So conversly then, would a sprinkler fitter be more than capable of installing a residential plumbing system if it is designed by a qualifed plumbing engineer?


----------



## AegisFPE (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

Sounds similar to the special licensing in Washington State.  http://www.wsp.wa.gov/fire/licensing.htm


----------



## Uncle Bob (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

With building way down; the same people who install commercial fire sprinkler systems and in apartment complexes should welcome the work; installing residential fire sprinkler systems.  They have the experience and training.

The inspections can also be done by the same people who inspect commercial installations, including apartment complexes; the Fire Marshal's Office and Fire Inspectors.

I don't see the reason to panic about not having trained people for either.

Uncle Bob


----------



## brudgers (Feb 12, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

and now you can drag the fire marshal out to every sun room addition.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 13, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

"With building way down; the same people who install commercial fire sprinkler systems and in apartment complexes should welcome the work; installing residential fire sprinkler systems. They have the experience and training."

And that was my point with the OP.........the folks that have been doing it, want to make sure they continue to control it through legislation. One of the sponsers of this bill is obviously pro-union, he also sponsored two pro-union bills last year. It has nothing to do with RFS in particular, they just want to make sure they keep their slice of the pie, and control the price.

"and now you can drag the fire marshal out to every sun room addition."

I don't have the 09 in front of me right now........but if memory serves, P2904 does not apply to additions/remodels.

And just for clarification, I was in Minneapolis when RFS was overwhelmingly approved, I voted against it. I was in Baltimore when RFS was challenged, and again, the first proposal to reverse RFS was overwhelmingly defeated, subsequent RFS proposals were abandoned without testimony. RFS is here to stay, like it or not. What I want to do is make sure that the end user, that has had RFS's thrust on them, meet the requirement with the most economical, but compliant installation.

And no, amending RFS out of the adopted code is not something I will put my name on, not in the litigious society we endure.


----------



## FM William Burns (Feb 13, 2010)

Re: Colorado HB 1142

Taken from other threads:



> I agree and thus the importance of having knowledgeable inspection officials qualified to review and inspect residential sprinkler systems before the dwellers move in so study up everyone because eventually they will be here to stay once the state battles are over and more jurisdictions finally adopt the provisions.





> We happen to be working with our sprinkler pipe fitters #669 and #704 and they are not opposed to training plumbers and I believe if other areas were to use similar licensing and cooperation the issues many have with these multi-purpose/network systems could be resolved. Everybody gets their piece of the pie. I totally support the notion that nobody should install or renovate a system unless qualified to do so.


----------

