|
|
|
What's New at FPC? |
|
For info on The IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition, please scroll down |
|
Following are some pros, cons and opinions on |
|
Scroll down for the latest on AB2288 No on AB 2288: |
|
California Assembly Bill – AB2288 – Not the Training Solution for California! Submitted by: Terri Simmons Leyton, Vice-President, Protection Design & Consulting Assembly Bill No. 2288, Introduced by Assembly Member Torrico, February 21, 2008 A summary of the bill’s requirements - as submitted by the Proponent: What will AB 2288 Require? • Requires persons who install or modify life safety fire sprinklers and fire extinguishing systems to either be enrolled in, or to have successfully completed a state or federally approved fire sprinkler fitter, or plumbing and pipe fitters apprenticeship program recognized by the State Fire Marshal. • Requires an apprentice fire sprinkler fitter to possess an identification card from the State Fire Marshal that indicates that they are enrolled in an approved apprenticeship program and may install or modify fire sprinkler and fire extinguishing systems as long as they are supervised by a holder of a certificate of registration. • Requires a certificate of registration be issued by the State Fire Marshal for any person that installs or modifies a fire sprinkler system, or fixed automatic fire extinguishing system in California. • Authorizes the State Fire Marshal to issue a certificate of registration to a fire sprinkler fitter that demonstrates completion of an approved fire sprinkler fitter, or plumbing and pipe fitters apprenticeship program and pass a written examination given by the State Fire Marshal. • Authorizes holders of C-16 contractor licenses to take the written examination given by the State Fire Marshal and authorizes the State Fire Marshal to issue them a certificate of registration if they pass the examination. • Requires a minimum annual continuing education in the life safety fire sprinkler field for holders of a certificate of registration. Problems with the bill • AB2288 is Union-sponsored legislation brought forth by Northern CA pipefitter unions. AFSA, NFSA, local Authorities Having Jurisdiction and many others are wondering why this legislation was developed without their input. I am not aware of a large number of sprinkler failures in California, where is the need for another layer of licensing by the SFM? • Licensing programs should be in regulation, not legislation. Any concerned or affected parties can participate in changing regulations through an existing, regulatory appeal process. • The stated mission of the CA State Fire Marshals’ Office: To support the mission of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) by focusing on fire prevention. SFM provides support through a wide variety of fire safety responsibilities including: regulating buildings in which people live, congregate, or are confined; by controlling substances and products which may, in and of themselves, or by their misuse, cause injuries, death and destruction by fire; by providing statewide direction for fire prevention within wildland areas; by regulating hazardous liquid pipelines; by reviewing regulations and building standards; and by providing training and education in fire Protection methods and responsibilities. • Note that missing from the stated mission of the SFM is the development of examinations and delivery of individual certificates of registration for craftspersons engaged in the installation of fire sprinkler systems. • The California State Fire Marshal’s Office is not in the business of conducting tests and issuing ID cards for registrations. Who at a local level is checking for these cards? The Local AHJ’s do not have the resources for this enforcement at any level. • The proponents claim a one time set up fee of $45,000 GF for the SFM to write regulations, purchase equipment and set up the program.“ I am not aware of existing monies available to the State to fund this program, nor is it reasonable or reality-based to think that $45,000 buys a state governmental program start-up today. • The bill presumes a self-sustaining program that is entirely funded by fees it collects. Suffice to say that so-called “Enterprise Funding” is a badly flawed model that has repeatedly demonstrated that it doesn’t work in California. There are no other funding provisions in the bill, which means that the Legislature would have to take up funding of deficits out of the General Fund at some time in the future. Proponents of the legislation have not spoken to issues of continuing funding since introduction of the bill. • The bill calls for an exam that is to be administered by the CA State Fire Marshal’s Office. Where is a copy of this “exam” for the stakeholders to review? What exactly is being tested? Who wrote, or will be writing this exam – the State Fire Marshal? Interested parties (i.e. Union proctors)? What about the other stake-holders – AFSA, Apprenticeship Council, Contractors State License Board, the contracting and engineering communities? I think we are supposed to “trust” that the curriculum will be adequate and we will agree with the testing criteria, whenever it is developed by someone to be named later…. • The proposed language of “or any other appropriate training program as recognized by the SFM”, gives absolute authority to the SFM to determine who eventually will be eligible to take the exam and receive a license. No entity will be able to change anything unless it is by legislation. • California has current testing and licensing requirements to establish and maintain a C-16 Contractor’s License. I am not aware of sprinkler failures occurring in our State at an alarming rate to warrant this added expense to our taxpayers or added responsibility to the CSFM and local enforcers. A fire sprinkler system must be designed by a licensed engineer, approved by an AHJ and the final installation must be verified by an AHJ prior to a building being occupied. • AB 2288 does not require background checks of those sprinkler fitters who will be licensed and certified to install and maintain sprinklers in businesses, schools, high rises, etc. Fire Alarm installers in our State have both FBI / DOJ verifications. • I believe that AB 2288 is ill-conceived and could further damage California’s weakened construction industry and should be rejected this year pending a comprehensive study of requiring the certification of individual building trades and specifically that of sprinkler installation. I am NOT in opposition to training in the Fire Sprinkler Business. I think it’s safe to say, we all recognize the need for training in our Industry. Both AFSA and NFSA offer apprenticeship training, installation training and many agencies, like NFPA offer training in the standards that we utilize in our industry. What can you do? If you reside in California – CONTACT YOUR SENATOR! Go to: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ This will take you to the CA Senator Page. Click on the “Your Senator” link. Please take a moment to send a letter to your Senator and make sure to send a copy to Assembly member Torrico’s office: Assemblymember.Torrico@assembly.ca.gov, and please send me a copy at: terri@protectiondesign.com. Assembly Member Alberto Torrico 39510 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 280 Fremont, CA 94538 This will enable us to keep track of letters of support and make sure they are all logged correctly in Sacramento – where we need them! Contact Info: Terri S. Leyton, Vice-President Protection Design & Consulting 8849-B Complex Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Phone: 858-751-2930 Fax: 858-751-2933 Email: terri@protectiondesign.com Yes on AB 2288: |
|
The following is in response to the
NO On AB2288 piece by Terri Leyton: 1. Plumbers currently install fire sprinkler systems all over the state of California, in fact anyone that holds a C-16 can hire whom ever they like to install a system. That could be a plumber, a carpenter or the individuals hanging out in front of the local Home Depot. AB 2288 would require those that have not passed the Certificate of Registration exam to be enrolled in an approved training program. 2. Yes there are many C-16 holders that spend a lot of money helping to train the people that work for them installing and maintaining their systems. Unfortunately not all contractors do, AB 2288 would help to insure that those who install these life safety systems go through a state or federally approved program and take continuing education classes to keep up to date on industry standards. There is no new segment of the State Fire Marshal’s office being established, this is well within the ability of the SFM’ current licensing and certification operation. 3. The AFSA has met with the sponsors of the bill more than once and has been invited to submit amendments or suggestions for amendments and has never submitted a single item. Of course Terri knows this as she represented the AFSA at a meeting on 5/23 in Ontario Ca. This bill is not about shifting liability it is about training. 4. Although there is a small amount of start up cost for the program, approximately $45,000, the fitters will fund the program, with annual fees, once it is up and running. I hope this answers some of the questions about AB2288; we are committed to doing what is right for our industry, the first responders and those that rely on quality fire protection. If I can be of any further assistance please feel free to contact me at: Stan Smith Business Manager Sprinkler Fitters 483 (o) 510.785.8483 stan@sprinklerfitters483.org SPRINKLER FITTERS UNION TO OPPOSE FIRE SPRINKLERS??? In a stunning development related to a proposed sprinkler fitter regulatory bill in California, Sprinkler Fitters Local Unions 483, 709 and 669 have vowed to oppose any fire sprinkler ordinance or act in the state, unless it is accompanied by other provisions for “adequate” fitter training. This extraordinarily ill-timed threat comes only four months before what most of us in the fire protection community hope will be the monumental IRC code hearings in Minneapolis, MN where the adoption of proposal RB64-07/08 would require residential fire sprinkler systems in all one and two-family dwellings, effective January 1, 2011. The bill in question, AB-2288, would require training and certification of all sprinkler fitters, and was written and is supported by the unions. The union’s position is detailed in a letter sent to members of the California Fire Service and signed by Randy D. Roxson, Attorney and Legislative Advocate for the proponents of the bill and the USA Sprinkler Fitters Association. Attempting to frame their position as a public safety advocacy, Mr. Roxson implies that if fitter certification isn’t undertaken, people (ostensibly including first responders) could die from failures due to installer negligence. And the union’s proposed remedy to this risk was then clearly stated, “As such, we go on record with a new policy statement from the Sprinkler Fitters Union of California. We will actively, openly, and adamantly oppose any proposed California state law, regulation, or local city or county ordinance that will require fire sprinklers or any other type of fire suppression system unless attached are adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems.” The union has offered no specific amendment or definition of what would constitute adequate training, but one could safely presume it involves membership in their organization(s), among other things. The letter, addressed to Robert Nolan of City of Brea, California, contains several inflammatory remarks, in addition to the position statement in opposition to sprinkler ordinance. Mr. Roxson equates AFSA’s opposition to the bill with the actions of Ford Motor Company regarding the Pinto. About AFSA he stated, “The AFSA are simply doing the same as Ford Motor Company did with the Ford Pinto. The ‘bean counters’ determined that it would be more cost-effective for its bottom line to pay claims for injuries and deaths caused by a discovered defectively designed (sic) gas tank, rather than to recall the Ford Pinto. Here, AFSA believes that instead of having to pay skilled installers, it is cheaper to just pay the potential claims associated with fire sprinkler failures no matter the lives this may claim.” The union re-visits the issue of “potential claims” later in the letter, “The Sprinkler Fitters Union in California believe that fire sprinkler system failures caused from defectively installed systems will ultimately damage the image of fire sprinklers and the industry itself.” How interesting. It seems to me that if the Union cared one bit about “the image of fire sprinklers and the industry itself”, it would watch its words and measure its own actions a tad more closely. As outrageous as their position against fire sprinkler regulations is the fear-mongering with regard to “fire sprinkler system failures from defectively installed systems.” To my knowledge, there has not been a single death or failure attributed to defectively installed systems – at least not in California. All of us have read of the tragic consequences of certain well-documented failures. The leading cause of loss in sprinklered buildings is interruption of and/or encumbrance of water supplies for example. Far too often, use and occupancy of buildings can change to a more hazardous one than that for which the system was originally designed and built. And unfortunately, our industry has had to contend with recalled and replaced sprinklers. But to advocate support of special-interest legislation by making unfounded public statements that imply an imminent danger to the general public is not just “politics”. Such action has the potential to severely damage our industry and the efforts to pass RB64-07/08, and underscores the apparent desperation of the local unions in California, and their willingness to say and or do almost anything to convince legislators that this is an essential bill. How ironic is their intent to oppose sprinkler regulations in the face of the purported need for this legislation to preserve the safety of the general public and fire service responders? Open any homebuilding industry or fire service publication and you will see that the most controversial issue in residential construction – besides residential fire sprinklers – is the general issue of fire safety in so-called lightweight construction. For which the obvious mitigation would be the installation of residential fire sprinklers. Can we therefore deduce that the union is only interested in life safety if it is delivered to the market on their own terms? After years of trying to push the ball up the mountain, and thousands of hours of dedicated effort by fire service and the fire sprinkler industry, we are at the cusp of gaining approval for the residential sprinkler mandate. Will we succeed or, like Sisyphus, will we again be pushed back to the base of the hill? By their actions, it seems that the union apparently does not care whether sprinklers are required in housing; what they apparently do care about is that whatever sprinklers are required in the built environment should be installed by union sprinkler fitters. Meanwhile hundreds of voting members of ICC are desperately trying to arrange for travel and accommodations – many of whom are municipal employees who will be doing so at their own expense – just to attend and vote at this historic hearing. How shameful are the union’s actions, to risk wasting the time, energies and financial resources of our fire service allies. Fire sprinkler technology has a long and storied history of nearly flawless performance throughout the built environment. I always thought that despite differences of opinion we may have within the fire sprinkler industry on certain issues, we could at least agree that sprinklers should be installed in all buildings, regardless of occupancy. But instead of working to make communities safer, the union would rather give fodder to those who oppose mandatory sprinklers. What better argument against the code change than to point out that the fire sprinkler industry can’t even agree amongst its own factions on whether sprinkler ordinance is an unconditionally good idea? Steve Leyton is President of Protection Design & Consulting in San Diego, CA. Steve is a member of the NFPA 14 and Residential Sprinkler Systems Technical Committees and served on the ICC Residential Sprinkler Ad Hoc Committee. His wife, Terri Leyton, is Vice President of Protection Design & Consulting and a paid consultant to AFSA for AB-2288. Among their many associations and affiliations, both Steve and Terri are members of the California Fire Chiefs Association, Fire Prevention Officers Sections for Northern and Southern California. Both are long-time advocates of residential fire sprinklers and have spent a combined 46 years in the fire and life safety community. Reaction In response to Mr. Leyton's Letter: The three California Sprinkler Fitter Local Unions have provided the most qualified, skilled and best trained sprinkler fitters and leaders in the industry for the past seventy years. We will continue to do so and would compare our contribution, support and leadership in the fire sprinkler industry to anyone’s. The rest of Mr. Leyton’ letter does not warrant response. We remain committed to doing what is right for our industry, the first responders and those that rely on quality fire protection. If I can be of any further assistance please don’t hesitate to contact me. — Stan Smith Business Manager Sprinkler Fitters 483 (o) 510.785.8483 stan@sprinklerfitters483.org Reaction To Roxson The Following link will take you to a new piece by Mr. Roxson, in response to my call-out last week. At the end is a link to my rebuttal of his essay. Residential Fire Sprinkler.com — Steve Leyton PROTECTION DESIGN & CONSULTING 8849-B Complex Drive San Diego, CA 92123 Ph: 858.751.2930 - Ext. 102 Fax: 858.751.2933 Reaction Not surprisingly, Mr. Roxson completely misstates my position on the issue of fire sprinkler fitter training and certification. As a principal owner of a firm that plans, designs and manages the construction of fire sprinkler systems, I have an acute and committed concern about the quality of work done by sprinkler fitters industry-wide. Our clients include architects, developers and both union and open-shop contractors, and our designs are installed by technicians with both union and non-union training. I am in favor of any and all efforts, programs, etc. that will further the training and skills of fire sprinkler fitters, so long as any such program is a professional, thoughtful and substantial one that is conceived and implemented by way of a consensus process and in partnership with all stakeholders. In my opinion, those stakeholders should include union and non-union contractors, apprenticeship proctors, labor department administrators, fire service representatives, the American and National Fire Sprinkler Associations and other recognized experts – NONE of whom were consulted by the author(s) of AB-2288 until long after the bill was written and submitted to the California Assembly. Show me a program that is a genuine consensus effort from its inception, and I’ll be first in line to support it. I will leave it to the reader to determine what Mr. Roxson actually meant by his statements. His articulate backpedalling is appreciated, as it at least illustrates that he and the unions understand how patently ridiculous and inflammatory his original statements were. But it is inaccurate to say that his statements were taken out of context, as they were quoted word for word. I challenge Mr. Roxson and the Sprinkler Fitters Unions – both the California and USA Sprinkler Fitters Associations – to make an articulate statement of support for fire sprinkler codes, regulations and ordinances, not only in California but throughout the rest of the country. Here again is what he said, “As such, we go on record with a new policy statement from the Sprinkler Fitters Union of California. We will actively, openly, and adamantly oppose any proposed California state law, regulation, or local city or county ordinance that will require fire sprinklers or any other type of fire suppression system unless attached are adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems.” If IRC Proposal RB64-07/08 is approved, the International Residential Code will be amended to require fire sprinklers in all one and two-family dwellings. But we must remember that IRC is a model code, and the implementation of any model code – be it IBC, IFC or IRC – occurs at the state level, usually by way of a regulatory or legislative process. Even if the IRC adopts the residential fire sprinkler provision, it will up to the states to determine if the code will be adopted as is, or with amendments. And, as legislative advocate and lobbyist in California, Mr. Roxson is well aware of how this process works in our state. The 2007 California Building and Fire Codes are heavily amended versions of the 2006 ICC model codes; we’re not shy about amendments in California. So if the Union in fact intends to oppose, “… any proposed California state law, regulation, or local city or county ordinance that will require fire sprinklers or any other type of fire suppression system”, it is reasonable to deduce that they will oppose the state adoption of the IRC as amended to require sprinklers, pursuant to Mr. Roxson’s clearly stated intention to do just that. What if a city wishes to create or amend a speculative building ordinance or establish higher design density criteria for fire sprinkler systems than the minimums prescribed by current codes or NFPA standards? What about a mitigation policy that prescribes fire sprinklers in lieu of apparatus access or hydrant proximity to a proposed project? Will they oppose such actions unless accompanied by, “…adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems”? It is disingenuous for Mr. Roxson to suggest that there is any questionable context to his comments. In fact, the unions’ actual intentions seem clear, albeit cloaked in the hard-headed rhetoric of a special-interest lobbying effort. But the language Mr. Roxson has used, both in his original comments and in his rebuttal to mine, absolutely do NOT unconditionally support fire sprinkler code and regulatory requirements. I challenge Mr. Roxson and the leadership of the California and USA Sprinkler Fitters Associations to clearly, unequivocally and UNCONDITIONALLY support fire sprinkler requirements without any partisan political strings attached. It would seem reasonable and prudent for them to do so, especially in consideration of the fact that the USA Sprinkler Fitters logo (as printed on Mr. Roxson’s business card) clearly states, “Sprinklers Are For Everyone”. The Sprinkler Fitters Union Support Fire Sprinklers In Steve Leyton’s recent rebuttal to my response to his misinformed article, he states, "they (in reference to the words of my letter) were quoted word for word". His quote was “SPRINKLER FITTERS UNION TO OPPOSE FIRE SPRINKLERS”. Word for word, my words did not state, "sprinkler fitters union to oppose fire sprinklers". As a former California fire official, my words have often been misquoted or twisted by people like Mr. Leyton with obvious motives, so I am not surprised. Both the USA Sprinkler Fitters Association and the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California strongly support fire sprinklers, regardless of Mr. Leyton's play on words. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise considering that fire sprinklers are the livelihood for sprinkler fitters. Furthermore, Mr. Leyton challenges the sprinkler fitters union to demonstrate its commitment to supporting fire sprinklers, by stating it "clearly, unequivocally and UNCONDITIONALLY support fire sprinkler requirements". Do you think the fire service would accept any and all proposed fire sprinkler requirements unconditionally, regardless of the particular proposal? There could be many instances where proposed language as written is inadequate, making the proposal unacceptable to many fire-related organizations, including ours. No one should ever question the commitment of the USA Sprinkler Fitters Association, or the local sprinkler fitter unions regarding fire sprinklers. You will see the commitment they have to fire sprinklers firsthand at www.usasprinklerfitters.org, as well as to other important fire safety causes. And, as I stated in my previous article, we strongly support the Federal Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act and actively participate with lobbying efforts in its regard. We know that some of those who oppose required minimum training standards will do what they can to discredit the sprinkler fitter unions. They will fight hard against any proposition that will require them to hire trained and qualified fire sprinkler installers. If they really believed in training, then why do they have such a problem with required training? California’s AB 2288 includes as qualifying training, not only the union’s sprinkler fitter apprenticeship program, but also California’s state-approved American Fire Sprinkler Association (AFSA) sprinkler fitter apprenticeship program. In fact, AB 2288 accepts any state or federally approved sprinkler fitter apprenticeship program as qualifying training for certification. It even provides language to permit the State Fire Marshal to recognize other qualifying training as it is developed in the future. In light of the numerous and diverse qualifying training options available with AB 2288, why oppose a minimum statewide training standard for sprinkler installers? Furthermore, some of our opponents have misrepresented the contents of California’s AB 2288, the organizations of which they claim to represent, and the positions taken by other fire service groups and organizations in regards to AB 2288. Even when corrected, they continue to disseminate knowingly false information, an indication that they have become quite desperate in their attempt to kill our bill. We have many supporters of AB 2288, which include fire service organizations, fire departments, fire marshals and fire chiefs. They have joined the Sprinkler Fitters Association of California in supporting the concept of a minimum training standard for those who install fire suppression systems, and they support AB 2288. These are people, organizations, first-responders, and government entities of California that do see the need for a minimum training standard for those who install fire suppression systems. Thus, we will continue to strive for requirements that will better serve the reputation of fire sprinklers while better serving the life safety of our public and first-responders. We believe that trained and qualified sprinkler installers are an important and necessary factor for achieving this goal. — RANDY D. ROXSON, Esq. Principal/General Counsel (209) 368-2948 www.firedesignconsulting.com www.firelawlawyer.com
The IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition |
|
We need your support! Attend the ICC Final Action Hearing Minneapolis, MN - Sept 17-23, 2008 to vote FOR residential sprinklers! FPC recently published an article by Jeffrey M. Shapiro, P.E., FSFPE, of the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition (March 2008, page73). The IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition was formed in 2007 to promote the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems by educating the public on the value of residential sprinklers and by supporting residential sprinkler legislation. The Coalition is supporting and coordinating efforts of fire safety advocates to change the International Residential Code (IRC) to require fire sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses. The IRC is a model code published by the International Code Council, and this document is adopted by jurisdictions nationwide as the code governing most residential construction in the U.S. Currently, the IRC is adopted in 45 states plus the District of Columbia.
For more information contact: FPC's June 2008 Edition The June 2008 edition of FPC magazine will feature Residential as well as Economics.
FPC's Question of the Month |
|
What are the most common fire sprinkler system impairments that you've seen? |
|
Do you want residential fire sprinklers in the International Residential Code? |
Featured Website
"Fire Sprinkler Coalition" For more information, visit the IRC Fire Sprinkler Coalition website.
| FPC's Upcoming Editorials |
| We are always accepting article submissions. |
|
Please see our Editorial Page for more information or E-mail Us! |
Copyright 1997-2004 FPC Magazine, Page created by Matt Tourtillott Enhancements by Parallax Multimedia