# Fire Marshals, Builders At Odds Over Bill To Require Sprinklers In New Homes



## mark handler (Mar 4, 2011)

Fire Marshals, Builders At Odds Over Bill To Require Sprinklers In New Homes

Disagree On Whether Measure Would Save Lives

By DANIELA ALTIMARI, altimari@courant.com The Hartford Courant

5:46 p.m. EST, March 3, 2011

HARTFORD Connecticut

A bill that would mandate sprinklers in all new homes won the praise of fire marshals but the disapproval of building officials at a public hearing Thursday.

Fire marshals from several communities who came to the state Capitol complex Thursday said the measure would save untold lives.

Officials with the Home Builders Association of Connecticut, however, told the legislature's public safety committee that the requirement would add significant costs without reducing the number of fire deaths.

New homes are already fairly fire-safe, said Bob Fusari Sr., past chairman and president of the home builders group. Most have fire-stopping materials, upgraded electrical systems, hard-wired smoke detectors, and better escape routes, he said.

Fatal fires, Fusari added, are far more likely to occur in homes built before 1985. "People are dying in the older homes yet we're putting sprinklers in new homes,'' he told the committee during a public hearing.

The International Residential Code, a comprehensive set of requirements for home building, has embraced the sprinkler mandate for all homes built after 2013.

Only two states, California and Pennsylvania, currently have a statewide mandate that all new residential homes come equipped with a sprinkler system. Connecticut requires sprinklers in nursing homes, schools and buildings taller than four stories, among other structures, but not in one- and two-family homes, as this bill would dictate.

The home building industry says it should be a matter of personal choice: Consumers who choose the expense of installing a sprinkler system should have the right to do so, but the state should not mandate it for all new construction. The association estimates sprinklers would add $10,000 to the cost of building a 2,400-square-foot home.

Fire safety advocates dismiss that argument, saying no one would leave proven lifesaving devices such as smoke detectors and seat belts to "personal choice." Cost is often used to fight improvements that wind up preventing countless deaths, but homeowners with sprinkler systems would benefit from certain financial incentives as well, such as reduced insurance premiums, they say.

Old Saybrook Fire Marshal Donn V. Dobson noted that few home builders flinch at the cost of adding granite to a kitchen, or any of the other bells and whistles that are often standard in new construction. And many of those same arguments about cost used against sprinklers were also raised in 1978, when battery-operated smoke detectors were first mandated in new construction, he said.

"Everybody said smoke detectors were going to break the bank,'' added Kevin J. Kowalski, Simsbury's fire marshal. "Sprinklers have been proven to save lives and they're not as costly as they say they are."


----------



## Mac (Mar 4, 2011)

The first sentence kind of threw me - "...the disapproval of building officials" doesn't seem to be the right rerminology when describing NAHB.

More of the same old same old.


----------



## Coug Dad (Mar 4, 2011)

In 1999 CT reportidly had 25 household fire deaths.  The arguements of "save untold lives" and "preventing countelss deaths" are silly and meant to evoke emotion rather than promote a real debate on the benefits of residential fire sprinklers.


----------



## steveray (Mar 4, 2011)

Coug Dad said:
			
		

> In 1999 CT reportidly had 25 household fire deaths.  The arguements of "save untold lives" and "preventing countelss deaths" are silly and meant to evoke emotion rather than promote a real debate on the benefits of residential fire sprinklers.


AMEN brother!


----------



## forensics (Mar 12, 2011)

2,400 sq ft X $1.61 = 10,000.00 Hmmm Hansome Markup For The Builder....

No Wait...He said BUILDING COST increase... WHEW! He was just LYING!!!!

SHEESH!


----------



## pyrguy (Mar 12, 2011)

Sprinkler installation costs are only a small part of the total cost in a residential system under the code requirements.

Check out what it would cost a rural home on a well water system to meet requirements.

I have to admit that I only do commercial projects now and have NOT kept up with all of the neuances of the code requirements for both the ICC and NFPA parts.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 12, 2011)

as I've said in a previous thread.........:beatdhrs


----------



## mark handler (Mar 12, 2011)

fatboy said:
			
		

> as I've said in a previous thread.........:beatdhrs


An issue that is not going away..........................................


----------



## conarb (Mar 12, 2011)

PYRguy said:
			
		

> Sprinkler installation costs are only a small part of the total  cost in a residential system under the code requirements.Check out what it would cost a rural home on a well water system to meet requirements.


On my current job sprinkler costs were running over $200,000 which amount to over $50 a square foot, to say nothing of having three 5,000 gallon storage tanks on the property. Actually the costs on a well were less than if I had been on municipal water where I would have had $153,000 more in meter charges. That $1.61 a square foot allegation is one of the fire sprinkler industry's bigger lies, maybe it does apply in lower class areas using illegal labor, but not in more educated affluent areas, and here in California sprinkler fitters must be union. Fortunately I was able to avoid the requirement through a legal argument, unfortunately the older plan checker who granted me the exemption told me in a meeting Thursday that he is retiring at the end of next month, in the future it will probably be necessary to actually litigate to get out of this onerous requirement.


----------



## pyrguy (Mar 12, 2011)

It may not be a total lie  but rather a misrepresentation of a partial discussion of a section of the equation.   

What was the cost of JUST the sprinkler heads and piping on that $200K job? No labor or other associated costs.


----------



## incognito (Mar 12, 2011)

forensics said:
			
		

> 2,400 sq ft X $1.61 = 10,000.00 Hmmm Hansome Markup For The Builder....No Wait...He said BUILDING COST increase... WHEW! He was just LYING!!!!
> 
> SHEESH!


Anyone who believes that $1.61, a fictitous amount provided by the sprinkler industry, is accurate is either a fool, idiot or moron. Take your pick. A straight forward easy installation in our area is coming in at a minimum of $3.25 per square foot. It was actually a good thing that the sprinkler advocates low-balled their estimate. Now everyone(general public) is seeing them for what they are---tellers of false statements(there is a single four letter word but some might find offensive). Combine this with the way the fire service unions are abusing the taxpayers and it is easy to see why their "white hats" are looking a little smudged. It is always fun to sit back and watch the results of self-inflicted wounds.LOL.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Mar 12, 2011)

"to say nothing of having three 5,000 gallon storage tanks on the property"

Why are you storing 15,000 gallons of water for a 13D? At worst case 360 galons would be most required. That would be 2 heads 18 gpm times 10 min.

NFPA 13D

6.1.2 Where stored water is used as the sole source of supply, The minimum quantity shall equal the water demand rate times 10 minutes unless permitted by 6.1.3

6.1.3 Where stored water is used as the sole source of supply, the minimum quantity shall be permitted to equal the two-sprinkler water demand rate times 7 minutes where dwelling units meet the following criteria:

(1) one story in height

(2) Less that 2,000 square feet in area

8.1.1.2

*Sprinklers that are listed with a specific discharge criteria*



8.1.1.2.2 The system shall provide at least the flow required to produce a minimum discharge density of 0.05 gpm/per square foot to the design sprinklers

8.1.4

*Operating pressure*

. The minimum operating pressure of any sprinkler shall be the higher of the minimum operating pressure specified by the listing or 7 psi.


----------



## conarb (Mar 12, 2011)

HL Fireinspector:

I posted the backup to that requirement in another thread, here it is again:



			
				Santa Clara County Fire Marshal said:
			
		

> Lack  of adequate fire protection water supply is the most frequent problem  in areas where no recognized water purveyor is available. On-site  water storage in large quantities requiring one or more standard  hydrants pressurized by a fire pump can be quite expensive. A typical  installation will require 1,500 gpm (gallons per minute) at 20 psi  (pounds per square inch) for 2 hours of operation, which equates to  180,000 gallons in storage, unless your project can qualify for our  Isolated/Rural exception. This will be in addition to water needed for  domestic, industrial or irrigation purposes. See *Standard*  CFMO-W2 for details (click Related Links below). You may also be  required to provide fire sprinklers if your project proposes structures  over 3,600 square feet, is located in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)  or if sprinklers are required by the Building Code. To see which WUI  zone your rural property is in visit our Wildland Urban Interface  webpage (link below) where you can view the _Santa Clara County Draft WUIFA_ map, available in both PDF and Google Earth formats.The *Primary tank* holds the water necessary for domestic, irrigation, or industrial use, in addition to your fire sprinkler water supply. The *Secondary tank*  supplies water to the Wharf Hydrant for firefighting purposes. The  double tank system was devised to avoid possible contamination of the  domestic water supply from the tank of the fire engine, as required by  the County Plumbing Code. We require the combination of domestic and  fire sprinkler supply in one tank to provide a degree of reliability for  the fire sprinkler system as people are most likely to ensure that  fresh water is available for other necessary uses at all times. See  Standards CFMO W1 & CFMO W5 for details by clicking on related link  below.¹


It makes no difference what the 13D requirement says, it's how it's amended and enforced in the local jurisdictions.



			
				PTR Guy said:
			
		

> What was the cost of JUST the sprinkler heads and piping on that $200K job? No labor or other associated costs.


I have no idea, sprinklers are not even allowed to be sold to builders. ever look for a fire sprinkler in Home Depot?  In California sprinklers must be installed by licensed and insured union fire sprinkler contractors, the union got that into the state contractors' board regulations as soon as it became obvious that California was going to adopt the requirement, they of course got it in on the basis that union-trained sprinkler fitters were necessary for the public safety.

¹ http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/fmo/faq#null


----------



## pyrguy (Mar 12, 2011)

I was asking about the material cost to see if that was close to the Buck-sixty number.


----------



## forensics (Mar 13, 2011)

My God ... Please tell me you are not that guillable

The actual cost per ft including the regular standard plumbing 3/4 meter is less than 2.00 psf and the systems are being installed every day in both small and large homes for the same price

The systems we have done on wells have also been less than 2.00 psf

FACT... 3.0 KFactor sprinkler heads require 7psi and the demand is 8GPM

Fact ...2 heads at 8gpm X 7 minutes (10min in larger homes) = 112 gallons (160 gallons) NOTE the water stored in the well caseing can be included

If you believe this bull then you are idiots...

FACT averge cost of 13D systems are less tahn 2.00 psf PERIOD

Con Arb  I admit I know nothing about the Left Coast requirements but might I suggest you MOVE to a more sane area

Surely you know your experience is not the norm. BTW in most of the country having a union card makes a craftsman no more competent than a nonunion craftsman


----------



## conarb (Mar 13, 2011)

Forensics:

People wonder why Uncle Bob and others are dropping out of here, I wonder why I am coming back, I've posted real world numbers from my admittedly expensive area and they amount to $50 a foot, I've even posted the fire marshal's information requiring all the storage on a well, and the utility district's numbers for larger meters, yet you keep beating the same drum to sell sprinklers for the corrupt coalition.


----------



## forensics (Mar 13, 2011)

I appoligize if you think I meant to beat you up

I admit that in your area the systems might be unreasonable but your circumstances are not representitive of the whole country

If the value vs cost equation does not work then you are right in your assumption that the systems are not for your area

I do not believe in sprinkler at any cost

If the cost vs benefit is not reasonable the local AHJ must either accept that he is imposing unreasonable requirements that are costing his community lives and property.

One of the central concepts in the passage of P2904 was the low cost and life safety only approach.


----------



## forensics (Mar 13, 2011)

_I was asking about the material cost to see if that was close to the Buck-sixty number._

The material and design cost for PexA systems including the concealed white heads is just under a dollar


----------



## Alias (Mar 13, 2011)

Two CA state senators (from rural CA) have introduced SB 726 requesting that rural CA counties have until 2014 to institute the new sprinkler rules.  I truly hope it passes.  For those of us in rural locales we really need more time to get all the components necessary for installation and enforcement in place.

Sue, where the west still lives......but no C-16 contractors.........


----------



## mark handler (Mar 13, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> but no C-16 contractors.........


Only 100 mi away in Redding, CA.....

or

Lodi, CA

Corning, CA

Chico, CA


----------



## Alias (Mar 13, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Only 100 mi away in Redding, CA.....or
> 
> Lodi, CA
> 
> ...


Mark -

Redding is actually the closest at 150 miles, three hours (in good weather) and four treacherous mountain passes when it snows. ;-)

The additional cost of travel + lodging + meals = how much added to the cost of the sprinkler installation?    This is why I support SB 726, three more years to get all of the details hashed out with the contractors, designers, etc.

Sue, where the west still lives.............:mrgreen:


----------



## mark handler (Mar 13, 2011)

Sue

you drive to slow.....


----------



## conarb (Mar 13, 2011)

If Pennsylvania repeals it that will leave only California, here is the status of the petition to repeal it in California.


----------



## Alias (Mar 13, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> Sueyou drive to slow.....


Yeah, but after nearly going off the road and into a canyon a couple times, I learned to slow down.  I've survived cancer, I decided I wanted to survive 299.  Oh, and my cancer doc is in Redding so I've been down that road numerous times!   

Sue, where the west still lives..........


----------



## Alias (Mar 13, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> If Pennsylvania repeals it that will leave only California, here is the status of the petition to repeal it in California.


CA -

Check out:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_726_bill_20

Might not help you but, maybe you can jump on the bandwagon and steer it your way?   

BTW, anybody know what the regulations are on manufactured homes and modular homes in CA?  Sprinklers required?

Sue, where the west still lives.........:cowboy


----------



## mark handler (Mar 14, 2011)

Alias said:
			
		

> CA -Check out:
> 
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0701-0750/sb_726_bill_20
> 
> ...


This link appears to be broken.


----------



## Alias (Mar 14, 2011)

mark handler said:
			
		

> This link appears to be broken.


Drat -

let's try this one:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_726&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Sue, where the west still lives.......


----------



## beach (Mar 14, 2011)

> BTW, anybody know what the regulations are on manufactured homes and modular homes in CA? Sprinklers required?


http://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/mhp/sprinkler.html


----------



## conarb (Mar 14, 2011)

Sue:

Thanks for that, but it doesn't look good:



			
				SB726 said:
			
		

> Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no.


Perhaps we should all contact our State Senators and explain the Minneapolis fraud, give them the copies of the bribe information, illegal under California statute, but it's going to be hard to counteract the vast sums of money donated to their campaigns by the sprinkler coalition and the firefighters' union.


----------



## pete_t (Mar 14, 2011)

Sue

Sprinklers would only be required in manufactured homes if the local authority specifically required them where they have jurisdiction.

Outside of parks:

Local jurisdiction may require them.

Inside of parks.

If the park is under state jurisdiction sprinklers are not required.

If the park is under local jurisdiction sprinklers may be required.

The latest Information bulletin from HCD is here:

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes/mhp/infobulls.html


----------



## beach (Mar 14, 2011)

> Perhaps we should all contact our State Senators and explain the Minneapolis fraud, give them the copies of the bribe information, illegal under California statute, but it's going to be hard to counteract the vast sums of money donated to their campaigns by the sprinkler coalition and the firefighters' union.


CONARB, I thought the FBI was going to investigate????:beatdhrs


----------



## FM William Burns (Mar 14, 2011)

:mrgreen:


----------



## forensics (Mar 15, 2011)

Conarb By BRIBE i guess you mean this NAHB BRIBE OFFER TO THE BUILDING OFFICIALS !!!

http://www.ircfiresprinkler.org/docs/NAHB%202007%20Grant%20Program.pdf


----------



## MarkRandall (Mar 15, 2011)

I find it hard to believe California legislators passed the requirement that sprinkler tradesmen must be Union. Requiring Union on all work must be unconstitutional somehow. If a licensed person quits the union, is he really now unqualified for the work?

I designed one rural house a few years ago that due to local regulations required sprinklers. In this case the home owner took a class on installation and did the work himself.


----------



## pete_t (Mar 15, 2011)

Mark

In CA a home owner may still install a sprinkler system he just can't design it.


----------



## conarb (Mar 15, 2011)

Mark:

Let me qualify that, what they did was require that anyone installing sprinkler systems be enrolled in, or be a graduate of, the state apprenticeship program, the apprenticeship programs are all run by and administered by the unions.  I would suppose that a guy could spend 4 years in the apprenticeship program, graduate, and then become a non-union sprinkler fitter, while enrolled in the apprenticeship program he would have to be employed by a union contractor.


----------



## beach (Mar 15, 2011)

Our just-retired fire marshal is installing fire sprinklers in his house by himself as we speak.....


----------



## conarb (Mar 15, 2011)

Beach said:
			
		

> Our just-retired fire marshal is installing fire sprinklers in his house by himself as we speak.....


Where did he buy them?  It's my understanding that they won't sell them to anyone other than a licensed sprinkler contractor, I Googled and see that there are some on eBay for $2 a piece.

I once did a cafeteria kitchen addition to a school, the plumbing contractor offered to extend the iron pipe and install the sprinklers as designed by the FPE, a sprinkler contractor threatened to turn me into the license board if I subcontracted the sprinklers to anyone other than a licensed sprinkler contractor, so I gave him the job not wanting any trouble.


----------



## fatboy (Mar 15, 2011)

CO passed similar legislation last year.......our Chapter worked to get P2904 systems specifically exempted from the law. Only made sense, since you would have to be a licensed plumber to touch P2904 installations in CO. Course, now the State Plumbing Board is trying to pass a rule that only licensed plumbers can then inspect a P2904 system. What a clusterfvck this crap is turning into.  :banghd


----------



## beach (Mar 15, 2011)

CONARB,

I'm not sure where he bought them, if ebay is selling used heads, they can't be reused. I'm not aware of any laws pertaining to suppliers selling only to licensed contractors. I do know he bought the riser assembly from a local supply house a year ago. I'll bet you'll be seeing Home depot selling them before long..... at least in California.

EDIT: It looks like ebay has quite a selection of heads: http://cgi.ebay.com/56-White-Reliable-Brand-Fire-Sprinkler-heads-w-Extras-/160558900525?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item25620e652d


----------



## mark handler (Mar 15, 2011)

beach said:
			
		

> CONARB,I'm not sure where he bought them, if ebay is selling used heads, they can't be reused. I'm not aware of any laws pertaining to suppliers selling only to licensed contractors. I do know he bought the riser assembly from a local supply house a year ago. I'll bet you'll be seeing Home depot selling them before long..... at least in California.
> 
> EDIT: It looks like ebay has quite a selection of heads: http://cgi.ebay.com/56-White-Reliable-Brand-Fire-Sprinkler-heads-w-Extras-/160558900525?pt=BI_Security_Fire_Protection&hash=item25620e652d


The heads appear to be new, not reused.


----------



## conarb (Mar 15, 2011)

I've heard that the sprinkler coalition keeps them tied up so the public can't buy them in the interest of safety, I've also heard that the Chinese are making counterfeit sprinkler heads, I saw pictures some time back where they counterfeited the UL label with Ul instead of UL, so inspectors have to be aware of this to distinguish the counterfeit from approved heads. There is enormous profit in this corrupt industry and they want to keep it this way, why do you think the coalition has spent so much money to get them mandated?



			
				UL said:
			
		

> On the product: The word "Globe" appears on the product. Sprinklers with the counterfeit UL Mark are manufactured with a slot-head screw and Job F5 or Job FR glass bulb. Non-counterfeit UL-Listed sprinklers manufactured by Globe Fire Sprinkler Corp. contain a hex-head screw and a Job G5 or F3 glass bulb. ¹


With the failure rate of Tyco's Mexican made sprinklers somewhere north of 20% can the counterfeit heads be much worse?

¹ http://afaa-ne.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=122


----------



## hlfireinspector (Mar 15, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Where did he buy them? It's my understanding that they won't sell them to anyone other than a licensed sprinkler contractor, I Googled and see that there are some on eBay for $2 a piece. Johnny Cash "One Piece at a Time"


----------



## beach (Mar 16, 2011)

> In CA a home owner may still install a sprinkler system he just can't design it


I'm not so sure about that..... 2010 Calif. res. code section R313 provides very simple design parameters using that sections prescriptive methods with simple equations and tables. Section R313 allows a choice of the prescriptive method (eight simple steps) per that section or in accordance with NFPA 13D, users choice.

If a homeowner brought me a simple sprinkler plan he designed per the 2010 CRC section R313, I would probably accept it. It's not rocket science.

We can quote experiences from ten, fifteeen, or even just two years ago but that is all past history, things have changed and we need to stay in the present.


----------



## pete_t (Mar 16, 2011)

beach said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that..... 2010 Calif. res. code section R313 provides very simple design parameters using that sections prescriptive methods with simple equations and tables. Section R313 allows a choice of the prescriptive method (eight simple steps) per that section or in accordance with NFPA 13D, users choice. If a homeowner brought me a simple sprinkler plan he designed per the 2010 CRC section R313, I would probably accept it. It's not rocket science.
> 
> We can quote experiences from ten, fifteeen, or even just two years ago but that is all past history, things have changed and we need to stay in the present.


Beach

I stand corrected; I misinterpreted an interpretation by the SFM.

The authority for an "owner-builder of an owner occupied, single-family dwelling" is in B&P 7026.12.


----------



## Mark K (Mar 21, 2011)

There are two issues here, who can design the system and who can install it.  The section quoted in the Business & Professions code has to do with the regulation of contractors.

As long as an engineer or architect is not required to design the residence anybody can design the sprinkler system as long as they comply with the code and do not violate the laws regulating the practice of engineering and architecture..

I contend that even without the exemption in B&P 7026.12 the homeowner could install the sprinkler system if he did the work or directly supervised the installation.  Contractor licensing laws are about protecting the consumer from incompetent or dishonest contractors.  If the homeowner does the work therre is no contractor to protect him from.


----------



## forensics (Mar 22, 2011)

Mark K

There are two issues here, who can design the system and who can install it.

The key to the design and installation is already in the IRC

1) Design...Section 106 in the Administrative section empowers the AHJ to require a competent designer and design submittal

2) Section 106 demands a "Recognized design professional" who is defined in the definations section of the IRC

3) The system is to be designed and installed as detailed in P-2904

4) The plumbers and plumbing inspectors are fully empowered by the IRC to install and inspect

The entire system and its design seems to be a well thought out plan


----------



## mark handler (Mar 22, 2011)

Mark

You are citing the B&P code. The Business and professions codes vary in every state.


----------



## beach (Mar 22, 2011)

This is for California:


_Business and Professions Code §7026.12. 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 or by an_

_owner-builder of an owner-occupied, single-family dwelling, if not more than two singlefamily_

_dwellings on the same parcel are constructed within one year, plans are submitted_

_to and approved by the city, county, or city and county authority, and the city, county, or_
​_city and county authority inspects and approves the installation._

NOTE to CONARB: Union workers are not required when installing, repairing, or maintaining fire sprinklers, regardless if it's commercial, residential, or whatever.


----------



## conarb (Mar 22, 2011)

Beach:

I have been told by my fire sprinkler subcontractor that all employees now have to be union or carry a registration certification in their wallets to touch a sprinkler system, researching it I found this and don't feel like researching the law, but bills were introduced in both the Legislature and the Senate:



			
				California Fire Trades Alliance said:
			
		

> AB 660 (Alberto Torrico) like last years AB 2288, AB 660 bill  prohibits any person from installing or modifying a fire sprinkler  system, a wet standpipe system, or an automatic fire extinguishing  system without a certificate of registration issued by the State Fire  Marshal (SFM). Sponsored by California's three sprinkler fitter unions,  the bill also requires all fitters who have not passed the registration,  to be enrolled in an apprenticeship program. This bill, because of the  state costs associated, is on the Appropriations Suspense file.
> 
> 
> SB 405 (Dave Cogdill) AFSAs alternative to AB 660, requires  any  commercial or residential fire sprinkler installation project  performed  by a Class C-16 fire protection contractor to be under the  direct and  immediate supervision of a commercial fire sprinkler  supervisor or a  residential fire sprinkler supervisor. Also requires  fire protection  contractors to implement a fire sprinkler  installation-training program  for their sprinkler fitters and  supervisors. Requires contractors to  file a description of this training  program with the State Fire Marshal  and upon request by state or local  fire authorities, requires the  contractor to show proof that the  contractor's sprinkler fitters and  supervisors have received training.  States that a violation of these  provisions could be subject to  disciplinary action. A 2-year bill, SB  405 will be taken up in 2010.¹


To be enrolled in a state apprenticeship program you must be enrolled in a union program, I can see that a guy could complete a 5 year apprenticship program and while working for a union contractor, get is own C-16 and become a non-union contractor hiring no employees. 





> Fill out a Certification of Experience form, also available at the CSLB website. This is used to  report your level of experience in building and installing fire  prevention systems. A minimum of four years' experience is required for  certification.²


¹ http://www.cftalliance.org/cfta-legislative.php² http://www.ehow.com/how_7904388_c16-state-contractor-license-board.html


----------



## conarb (Mar 22, 2011)

Further research shows that I am wrong, there is one program to get the requisite certificate without going through the union program.



			
				California Sprinkler Fitters said:
			
		

> In California, there are 4 state-approved sprinkler fitter  apprenticeship-training programs, administered by its Department of  Apprenticeship Standards (DAS).  Three are union sponsored; the other  sponsored by the American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA) for nonunion  sprinkler fitters.  The AFSA state-approved apprenticeship-training  program provides the nonunion sprinkler fitter the opportunity to obtain  the necessary skills required to be qualified to install fire  suppression life safety systems.¹


The AFSA, yet another coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers, has got their own apprenticeship program certified to sell more sprinklers by installing them cheaper.

¹ http://www.californiasprinklerfitters.org/featured-articles/


----------



## beach (Mar 22, 2011)

> The AFSA, yet another coalition of fire sprinkler manufacturers, has got their own apprenticeship program certified to sell more sprinklers by installing them cheaper.


Did you think NAHB would be providing the training??? That would be like UCLA coaching Stanford..... I'm sure you're a Stanford fan....with a pendant on your antenna!


----------



## conarb (Mar 22, 2011)

So now we are going to have $500,000 a year firemen sitting on their asses doing nothing but advocating fire sprinklers to get kickbacks to their unions from the fire sprinkler industry, while the sprinklers themselves are being installed by $9 an hour illegal aliens.


----------



## Alias (Mar 22, 2011)

CA -

Thanks for the links. Printed the one with the instructions for the next contractor who tells me he's/she's going to get his/her C-16 license.      No one here has the experience as far as I know.


----------



## beach (Mar 22, 2011)

Again..............:beatdhrs  
	

		
			
		

		
	

View attachment 887


View attachment 421


View attachment 421


/monthly_2011_03/conar.JPG.a59654d388b43e1b33b29e3643a8dd72.JPG


----------

