FPE's for installation companies - From doitright06's post 3

[SprinklerDesigner2]

In a different thread I ran across this:

doitright06 (Mechanical)
23 Mar 08 2:10

Therein lies the problem. Have you represented yourself or your firm to your client as capable to solve or consult on this issue, when clearly, as you have implied, you are not an FPE??

Again, without a qualified FPE involved, you are grasping at straws trying to interpret NFPA 13 for yourself.

===============

A "qualified FPE" is sometimes what I would like to have involved but how to get one without muddying up the works?

I'm certified NICET IV in sprinklers with over 30 years experience on the board or computer and do consider myself qualified in some areas but not others.

I can handle 13R systems, most mercantile as long as it isn't a big box store, office buildings and the like. These are pretty straight forward situations where the design criteria can be taken right out of the NFPA standards.

For some larger projects, Factory Mutual for example, the design criteria is almost always given by an account engineer knowledgeable in the area.

But then there are jobs where I just don't know. The peanut butter warehouse I did last year is a prime example where I got pointed in the right direction. If the product is more then 50% oil then it's to be treated as a class A plastic. I asked, the owner told me content was 55% oil so that one I got right.

What would happen to me if I had designed the warehouse for a Class III commodity and they had a fire that killed someone? Like it or not I did real engineering work I know I shouldn't have done. I don't want to do this anymore.

The idea a designer is a carryover from 30 years ago where all we had was upright and pendent sprinklers on pipe schedule systems on plans that were always reviewed by ISO, FM or IRI. 30 years ago the many states weren't involved in reviewing sprinkler systems we just went and did it.

While I feel I am qualified to lay the system out I oftentimes doubt my qualifications to accurately determine what the proper design should be.

Sometimes I lay awake at night wondering and to tell the truth I don't want that responsibility. I shouldn't have that responsibility, because I don't have the qualifications, but designers take on that responsibility ever day. It's crazy. Sometimes I get scared. If you think about fires, someone getting killed and lawyers you have good reason to be scared.

The Society of Fire Protection Engineers has a white paper dealing with the relationship between the layout technician and fire protection engineer. Many in the installation arena bristle when this paper is mentioned but I think the Society is spot on in this issue.

I think part of the resistence to having a FPE involved stems from dealing with some PE's (not FPE's) and architects in the past. We've all seen things come out of architectural and engineering first that's garbage... for to long that end has shoveled the responsibility over to installation companies.

I don't do design for free and don't expect a FPE to work for free either.

Where I work we're not required to have someone slap a seal on sprinkler drawings. All that's needed is a NICET III or IV signature.

We're a small company doing between $1 and $2 million a year so we can't bring an FPE aboard for full time employment but we need one. I think every installation company needs access to one.

So my questions is for the FPE's that visit.

How do I go about ending the insanity?

Do any you FPE's have a relationship with an installation company and how does that work?

Sorry I got so long winded but the issue really bothers me.

 

[FFP1]

I am a FPE in Georgia.........I was employeed by FM for 15 years prior to starting my own company (Falcon Fire Protection). We are state certified to complete all facets regarding water-based fire protection systems; however, we are primarily focused on inspection services and engineering consulting. I have one "installation company" (their primary focus is installation of water-based fire protection systems) who uses our services for preliminary work such as design criteria and water flow testing services. I typically write a design letter with the pertinent information and the installing contractor completes the project. We charge using an hourly rate; the price varies depending on the time required to complete the job. Give me a call at (478) 953-1677 if you have any specific questions.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

I am a FPE in Georgia.

I typically write a design letter with the pertinent information and the installing contractor completes the project. We charge using an hourly rate; the price varies depending on the time required to complete the job.

==================

This appears to be exactly the "backup" I was looking for and in the right area of the country too.

I'll give a call to get particulars so I kind of know what to plug in for you when bidding a project.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Please don't bash me but I don't think we have answered the question. NFPA 13, Section 1.2.2 states one does not need to be a registered PE to apply the standard. The question asked, as I read the post, is when does one require a PE to seal the fire protection drawing or specification.

I'll preface by stating that anytime I did plan review, I usually started in Section 13500 of the specification because it established the construction specification. Whom evers seal was on the cover was who I heald responsible. I've seen specs that stated "comply with NFPA 13 and with approval of the local fire marshal." That was an automatic plan rejection in my book. If the specification did not establish the required discharge density and design area, then the designer couldn't do his/her job.

A registered fire protection engineer needs to become involved when:

A) The design is outside the scope of NFPA 13
B) Commodity classification is involved
C) The storage is what I term high-challenge
D) It involves hazardous materials
E) It requires the application of GE Global Asset Protection or FM Data Sheets.

Why? The design is now deviating from an adopted standard in the International Fire Code or NFPA 1 and requires an analysis of the building, its stored hazards, AND the fire protection system. The 2002 edition of NFPA 13, Chapter 13 is nothing but a big loophole of funky designs. In my mind we FPEs are starting to enter into an arena where quantitative analysis is required.

I have other thoughts but it is late and I wanted to offer my comments to a interesting question.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

I never bash but I didn't mean to ask when drawings need a PE stamp.

As far as the list I couldn't agree more especially when it comes to the funkiness of Chapter 13.

 

[Cidona]

I got benift from the clarification stookey provided. In fact I got something from everyone's post on this one. The SFPE Postion Statement was an interesting read but doesn't deal with projects when the Owner has hired a Mechanical Engineering firm (often outside their area of expertise when it comes to sprinkler systems) to handle the fire protection submittals, etc. But where it is a light hazard occupancy that is within the ability of a layout technician employed by the instaling contractor and to be reviewed by the local authority. Stookey's post (as a FPE)seems to address when this is 'okay', while identifing certain definite restrictions when a FPE is required. (Although there is grey with regards to your statement rejecting plans if the specs for the project allowed the designer/technician the option to utilize NFPA 13 hydraulic design options and local codes . Would this not be ok in your opinion for non storage building within the scope of NFPA 13?) Thank you all for your input.

 

[stookeyfpe]

Cidona

Depends on which state your in. I know the Arizona Board of Technical Registration requires the engineer of record to define the occupancy classification based on NFPA 13 and evaluate the water supply. Here in Texas, I would agree that you could pick the occupancy.

It was late when I posted. Knowing that a building is Light or Ordinary hazard, I generally let it go. When we started getting into high piled stock, hazmat, or some of the funky stuff in NFPA 13 Chapter 13, the engineers here knew I would push it back on them to figure it out.

 

[DonPhillips]

Here is what the 2007 Ohio Building Code says:

"106.3.4.1 Seal requirements. When it is required that documents be prepared by a registered design professional, the building official shall be authorized to require the owner to engage and designate on the approval application a registered design professional who shall act as the registered design professional in responsible charge. The building official shall be notified in writing by the owner if the registered design professional in responsible charge is changed or is unable to continue to perform the duties. The registered design professional in responsible charge shall be responsible for reviewing and coordinating submittal documents prepared by others, including phased and deferred submittal items, for compatibility with the design of the building.

Construction documents shall bear the seal of a registered design professional pursuant to Section 3791.04 of the Revised Code.

Exception: The seal of a registered design professional is not required on construction documents for:
1. Buildings or structures classified as one-, two-, or three-family dwellings and accessory structures.
2. Energy conservation design for buildings or structures classified as one-, two-, or three-family dwellings.
3. Fire protection system designs submitted under the signature of an individual certified in accordance with Section 105.3.1.4 .
4. Installation of replacement devices, equipment or systems that are equivalent in type and design to the replaced devices, equipment or systems.
5. Alterations, construction or repairs to any buildings or structures subject to Sections 3781.06 to 3781.18 and 3791.04 of the Revised Code where the building official determines that the proposed work does not involve the technical design analysis of work affecting public health or general safety in the following areas: means of egress, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, or fire protection.
5.1. For the purpose of this exception, technical design analysis is defined as the development of integrated solutions using analytical methods in accordance with established scientific and engineering principles.

105.3.1.4 Fire protection system construction documents.
Construction documents for fire protection systems authorized to be submitted by individuals certified pursuant to Chapter 4101:2-87 of the Administrative Code shall:
1. When submitted under the signature of an individual certified under Section 3781.105 of the Revised Code, be processed in the same manner as construction documents submitted under the signature of a registered design professional. Any statistical data, reports, explanations, plan description, or information that would not also be required for a similar submission by a registered design professional need not be submitted by a certified designer.
2. If certified by a registered design professional or individual certified under Section 3781.105 of the Revised Code as conforming to requirements of the rules of the board pertaining to design loads, stresses, strength, stability, or other requirements involving technical analysis, be examined by the building department official only to the extent necessary to determine conformity of such construction documents with other requirements adopted by the board under Chapters 3781. and 3791. of the Revised Code.
3. Indicate thereon the individual installing the fire protection systems who shall be certified by the fire marshal pursuant to Section 3737.65 of the Revised Code. In the event that the installer is not known at the time of plan approval, partial plan approval shall be granted subject to subsequent submission by addendum of the name of the qualified installer prior to installation of any part of the fire protection systems."

My understanding is you have to be NICET certified to be certified asa fire protection system designer.

Don Phillips

http://worthingtonengineering.com

 

[Cidona]

The NICET requirement has been held up in Illinois for design companies. From my understanding the hold up is due to negotiating the language between NICET and SFPE. After reading Don's post I can get an idea of how they're having problems fine tuning the legal jargon. Does section 3781 specify NICET?
Currently here in Illinois the contractor has to be a licensed Fire Protection contractor and as such has to have a PE or a NICET Level 3 working for them. Plans must be submitted by the contractor.

http://www.state.il.us/osfm/FirePrevention/ContractorStatute.pdf

Section 20 leaves areas that I'm sure are part of the discussion between NICET and SFPE regarding the respective roles of Engineers and NICET Technicians. The Contractor Statute is only in regards to installing firms and not companies that deal with design only. So everyone will be keen to get the issues resolved and have some licence requirement for design comapnies (Sound like a good idea?)

 

[doitright06]

"So everyone will be keen to get the issues resolved and have some licence requirement for design comapnies (Sound like a good idea?"

Well contractor licensing has a lot of merit to it, but if you are looking for individual technicians to be licensed, then NO, not a good idea.


The problem with NICET is

NICET POLICY 32. NICET CERTIFICATION AND THE PRACTICE OF ENGINEERING

The NICET certification programs are intended to award certification to individuals who have demonstrated appropriate and adequate engineering technician or technologist work experience. The NICET certification programs are not designed or intended to award certification to any individual to perform engineering services as defined under any state law or regulation as the "practice of engineering." NICET is opposed to any effort by any individual or group to misrepresent the NICET certification program as a program designed or intended to demonstrate qualifications to practice engineering as defined under state law or regulations.

No matter what your state law says, at some point you as a NICET technician (not engineer) will be in a position of making an engineering decision or judgement (that you shouldn't be making), or performing engineering work product, such as hydraulic or seismic bracing calculations.

And no, I don't care what those of you that claim that the engineering is in NFPA 13 say, that's bull, and you know it. It does not cover absolutely everything, and purposely so. Sooner or later you will be FORCED to be interpreting it, or making some sort of judgement, and that is ENGINEERING, sorry to burst your bubble, but it is.

NICET is sponsored by the NSPE, National Society of Professional Engineers. Are you foolish enough to believe that the NSPE is going to allow or sponsor NICET if NICET were to actually condone the practice of engineering by its certificants? Once again, you are fooling yourself if you do.

This is the problem in Illinois, and whether you think so or not, in any other state that has circumvented PE involvement just for sprinkler system designers, based on NICET certifications. I have heard rumor that NSPE is in talks with NICET right now to force suspension of certificates for those of you that are using your certification to obtain these licenses in these various states. Like it or not, that's what this is going to come down to. NICET certificate holders are NOT engineers, and should not be performing engineering, regardless whether their states have written specific laws or rules that do allow it based on their NICET certification. This is a use that NICET was NEVER intended for. NEVER!!

I for one applaud the NSPE for apparently forcing the issue with NICET. I am sick and tired of watching others minimize this important profession, especially in Fire Protection. The biggest joke with the Sprinkler System Layout certification is that you guy/gals can obtain Level 3, which all imortance has apparently been placed on as being minimally competent, without passing advanced hydraulics. This is shameful, and my sources tell me that this is gonna change.

 

[Cidona]

Like I said in my previous post section 20 leaves alot of grey areas. It definitely seemed to allow too much leway to the NICET certificate. Not addressing where limitations on what that indivigual is 'licensed' to do. For these reasons I was glad to see the topic being brought to light. I agree. Nothing would please me more than having a FPE on every project, clearly specifying the project requirments (so long as there's still something for me to do).
Curiuos though (this is just a civil discussion here), if you don't think NICET certificate holders are meant to do any hydraulics, what role do you see for us?
Or are you looking for the standards of NICET to be stepped up?

 

[doitright06]

"if you don't think NICET certificate holders are meant to do any hydraulics, what role do you see for us?
Or are you looking for the standards of NICET to be stepped up?"

It's not that NICET certificate holders cannot do this, but they should be done properly, under the "direct/immediate personal supervision" of a licensed FPE. This is the PE law in all states, some form or variation of this direct/immediate supervision clause.

And yes, if MORE importance is being placed on NICET for the sprinkler system layout program, MORE than it was ever intended to be utilized for, then the program should be stepped up.

As I said previously, as it stands right now, today, one can obtain Level 3 without passing advanced hydraulics. If the government or others want to insist that NICET level 3 is the minimum standard, then it needs to mean something, It needs to be more difficult to attain.

 

[FFP1]

I would like to start by stating that I agree with almost everything in the previous posts.

In the great state of Georgia, anyone with NICET Level III or IV (Automatic Sprinkler System Layout) is considered "certified" to do it all as long as they own or are employed by a recognized Fire protection Contractor. Georgia does not required PE stamped plans for fire protection drawings/plans. I do not see a problem with this approach as long as the individual operates in a responsible manner. No one should develop design criteria, create drawings/plans, install fire protection systems, perform fire pump flow tests, conduct inspections, etc. unless they are properly trained and considered competent in the specific job description. The potential consequences and liability are too severe.

In my experience, most of the individuals who have obtained NICET Level III or IV (Automatic Sprinkler System Layout) have the knowledge and experience to complete the design criteria and develop drawings/plans for common occupancies as long as there are no "special circumstances". These individuals should possess the character to decide when a project exceeds their personal level of expertice; in this instance, the individual should dig deep into NFPA and other reference materials. If they cannot find a clear answer, they should seek advice from a FPE or other capable person who has the knowledge and expertice regarding the subject in question. In my opinion, FPE's should also follow this approach.

Very few, if any, people are completely competent in all facets of the fire protection industry. I am a FPE and NICET Level III. I will complete projects and provide engineering consulting for projects with which I am competent (as long as I have the required experience for the occupancy or hazard), but I will explain to any potential client that I am not qualified if the project includes an occupancy or hazard evaluation which I am not completely comfortable handling. We all need to know our own limitations and seek advice or input from qualified people whom we trust when needed.

This is my opinion and the way I have decided to conduct my actions anyway.

You cannot write a law or state regulation which covers every possible situation.......at some point our society must count on personal responsibility and integrity.

 

[stookeyfpe]

FFP1

I gave you a star because you pointed out that we all have our own abilities and our own limitations. For example, I am pretty comfortable with most hazmats and high piled combustible storage. However, ask me to consider a design for a fire alarm system or smoke control system and I will run like a scared, screaming child.

Sprinkler Designer 2, again thanks for bringing up this important subject.

 

[firepe]

Stookey makes a good point, as usual I might add, but there is more to it.......

Professionional Engineering, Architecture, etc. are set up to be self policing professions. A PE should only practice in his/her area(s) of expertice.

I would take this a step further and suggest that NICET certificate holders are required by the NICET Code of Ethics to hold themselves to a similar standard of care.

Taking it even further, I want to comment on some of the "rogue" states out there that have enacted legislation that attempts to shift engineering work away from engineers and enables other "non-engineers" to perform engineering tasks, namely sprinkler system layout, and other fire protection design work, etc.

EVERY state in the US utilizes an entity called NCEES, National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, for their Professional Regulation activities. The NCEES is an umbrella organization for the Professional Engineering and Surveying Boards established in each U.S. state and territory. The NCEES is the organization that is actually responsible for evaluating engineering ciriculum, and individual experience levels in administering PE exams. The NCEES develops the PE exams for every discipline every year in every state. They are the main driving force behind the professional engineering licensing in each state.

In 2003, the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) appointed a task force to develop a position statement to encourage nationwide, uniform implementation of fire protection systems engineering design. At that time, the Chair of the NCEES task force stated "many state and local permitting authorities allow nonlicensed individuals to design fire sprinkler and fire alarm systems. As a result, the NCEES has acted to reverse this trend."

In August 2004, the NCEES adopted a Position Statement, known as PS #25, "Fire Protection." The NCEES position stated the following on the design of fire protection systems:

NCEES Position Statement
NCEES recognizes that fire protection systems – including fire detection, alarm, and suppression systems – play an important role in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public. NCEES also recognizes the design and calculation of fire protection systems to be the practice of engineering.

NCEES recommends that Member Boards actively pursue enforcement of state statutes and rules with local permitting authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) regarding the engineering supervision over the specification, design, and calculation of fire protection systems.

To implement the above, the following is recommended:

Contract drawings should include a set of fire protection drawings that are sealed by a licensed professional engineer. Supervision by a licensed professional engineer is required in the review of fire protection installation shop drawings for compliance with the engineer's design and specifications. Oversight by a licensed professional engineer is required in the installation of an original permitted design.

The movement is now towards enforcing previous engineering laws, and convincing "rogue" states to undo what they have enacted.

The NSPE, as Doitright06 pointed out, is the sponsor organization for NICET. NICET, in fact, is actually located in NSPE's HQ building in Alexandria, VA. The NSPE has come out in support of this NCEES position, and it would make sense that they are pressuring NICET to make some changes, and suspend certificate holders that may be "bending" the rules.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

As an organization NICET members need to do a better job policing themselves to stay the heck out of engineering.

There's a need for FPE's to oversee some projects but not every single project out there. FPE's need to recognize their industry doesn't have the manpower to oversee every sprinkler project.

Some PE's are great to work with but there's a number who wanting to climb into sprinklers where I've forgotten more about sprinklers then they ever knew. Far to often we NICET people receive a sprinkler drawing and specifications that's worthless and I would urge all PE's that don't know it to stay out making life easier for those of us that do. Oh, and if you want to include specifications on the project I would urge some to update their 40 year old specs because things have sure changed over 40 years. Two weeks ago I received a spec calling for a density of .19 with 500 gpm hose in an Ord. Haz. Group II occupancy. Come on guys, if you elect to do this work give us a break and get it right. I hate specs that include the phrase "Sprinkler contractor to do everything exactly in accordance with plans and specifications except where the engineer is wrong and then it's incumbent upon the sprinkler contractor to fix the mistake at his expense." Yeah, maybe not the exact wording but we've all seen something like this.

I don't like sharing. I want all the responsibilty or I don't want any of it.

PE's don't want to do drawings and calcs because you don't have the resource of time. PE firms don't want to starting hiring a bunch of NICET employees we're like herding cats. Besides that a lot of us own our own installation companies and don't want to work for you because you couldn't pay us enough money. Average NICET IV makes between $60K and $75K, company paid medical insurance, 401(k) plan and many of us have pretty much unlimited use of company vehicles.

NICET certificate holders need to recognize and accept FPE's do have a place and all of us have had projects where we needed one. Chemical plants are a prime example, I wouldn't begin to touch one without an FPE somewhere in the background. Stookey brought this home a while back in a discussion about chemical storage in a water treatment plant. I would have never figured that one out and being a water treatment plant would have figured Ord. Group II and got it way wrong. All Stookey did was reinforce in my mind to accept there are times I shouldn't go it alone.

Having NICET in the company is important because it makes someone responsible to make sure the system goes in in accordance with the drawing.

How about this? NICET certificate holders can submit do Light, Ordinary Haz. and 13R systems. We NICET's are capable of doing this.

Chemical plants, storage facilities > 12' and storage of plastics need a letter from an FPE evaluating the hazard and stupulating the design criteria unless one is provided by say FM Global or equal. I'm doing a project for one of the largest chemical companies in the world right now. Their people provided the design criteria and I don't see why an FPE would need be involved here. Probably one already involved somewhere in the pipeline.

That's my two cents worth.

 

[firepe]

To piggy back on SprinklerDesigner2's post,

"Far to often we NICET people receive a sprinkler drawing and specifications that's worthless and I would urge all PE's that don't know it to stay out making life easier for those of us that do. Oh, and if you want to include specifications on the project I would urge some to update their 40 year old specs because things have sure changed over 40 years."

As I stated in my previous post, PE's are a self policing profession. What does this actually mean??? This means that each State's regulating board does NOT have a crystal ball, and does not know everything that is going on out there.

This is MOST IMPORTANT!!! If you run into one of these less than qualified PE's, that is dabbling in Fire protection, turn them in!!! Submit a complaint to your State's Board. They cannot do anything without it anyway. Let the State do the investigating. The more complaints of a similar nature, and a little "pep" talk with the engineer involved may solve the problem, and make them stop and go away.

If you just sit back and do nothing, then you are in effect condoning it, and allowing it to continue.

As I said, NICET certificate holders have a code of ethics as well, and being a good citizen, and reporting problems is part of that citizenship.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

"if you don't think NICET certificate holders are meant to do any hydraulics, what role do you see for us? Or are you looking for the standards of NICET to be stepped up?"

Thank you doitright.

NICET standards need to be upped there's to much disparity between the best and worst of us. Won's say where, it wasn't in Georgia, but a not long ago I was called out to "fix" a boat storage facility. 4 in 12 pitched roof with wood joists 24" OC using extended coverage sprinklers on an antifreeze system. 30,000 sq. ft. building with a 6" loop and 2" branch lines. Had to have 1,000 gallons of antifreeze.

No expansion tank or relief valve the system popped a head and filled up the hull of a was nice cabin cruiser with propylene glycol.

NICET is required where this was done. I wanted to cry when I saw it. Someone that didn't care crapped on the industry I love. Gave the owner the bad news the only way I would touch the project is if I tore everything out and did it over. Never heard back.

Makes me angry because it's garbage like this splatters us all.

We don't have to have four year BS degrees but why not a two year technical degree followed by three years experience before taking a NICET exam?

A formal school setting would be the perfect place to teach what is, and is not, the practice of engineering.

Many industries have this sort of thing in place especially the health care industry. X-Ray techs are a perfect example. X-Ray techs put needles in peoples arms but is that practicing medicine?

 

[stookeyfpe]

SprinklerDesigner2

I am dealing with the same thing this week. I've been guiding a consulting engineer on a project in PA involving six-90K gallon pressure vessels used for propane storage. A 2,500 GPM fire pump was purchased and then the local water authority said "we can only provide 1,000 GPM." The owner have already dropped mid $ six figures laying a 8 inch water main and purchasing equipment.

Yet, I've been advising everyone that NFPA 58 does not require a water spray system or such a robust water supply. A due diligence review was not done, heck I believe the NFPA standards were not even opened, and a PE registered as either a FPE or Chemical Engineer was not consulted.

Trust me, we have a great number of loosy goosy design professionals running around who will slap a seal on anything.

This is why I don't trust any health care providers (Doctors) unless I check their registration with the State and get a second referral for any minor or major medical issues. I know, since it is colonoscopy time.

With regards to your boat project, it reminds me of a fire that has recieved no national attention yet was very, devasting. It was a fire in December of last year at a kitchen products warehouse in North Carolina. The FD was on the scene for over 24 hours. The building was lost, much of it to do with the FD actions. However, it involved some very funky bin boxes filled with plastic kitchenware in an automated warehouse. I personally would have said no due to the lack of fire test data and FMs vauge statements regarding bin boxes. They had in-rack sprinklers in every level and redundant diesel fire pumps. I'm already drawing some conclusions from the fire photos that tell me horizontal barriers and face sprinklers may have controlled the fire. However, the FD FUBARed the situation. If I was their FPE, I would have been begging the FD (heck, I would spend the money and pay them to attend, given that it is a volunteer FD) to attend training to understand the hazards.

Sometimes we need to tell the customer that there business plan does not comply with the code and we lack the knowledge to solve the problem unless they want to pay for testing. Consider that we FPEs and sprinkler designers have only been dealing with high piled storage for only 30 years. FM did not start fire testing until the late 1960s - early 1970s. Yet we have a variety of special designs and special sprinklers (as defined in NFPA 13) and more of the both are in development. Edward Parmalee did not consider high piled combustible storage or hazmat when he considered the original sprinkler design for textile mills in New England.

It's not a crap shoot. But if you are going to start dealing with some of these really challenging problems, I strongly suggest to not go it alone. Last month I was talking with a contract building offical in Colorado who was dealing with an explosives plant. He knew enough to kill multiple people and his comments about the process would require me to have testing performed and retain a chemical engineer with an strong understanding of energetic materials. In my previous life as a code official, I had the authority to require it, and I have used it. I have cost some companies their livelihood - but they were not built in my jurisdictions.

It goes both ways - code officials who think the code protects them and the community and registered PEs who think that complying with the code immunizes them from risk because they met the supposed standard of care.

I strongly heed your comments and those of Firepe and summarize by stating: It is OK to say no. My pillow tells me that every night, and trust me I've lost some sleep over approvals I've issued or designs I have commissioned. Conversely, build on your relations and find a second, independant voice to guide you. And pay them.

 

[SprinklerDesigner2]

Stookey,

Bottom line is designers that allow themselves be forced into practicing engineering aren't near as smart as they think they are.

A PE or FPE at least has errors and omissions insurance that will cover his rear should he make a mistake but as a layout technician I don't have any such protection. Imagine a fire where there's a sprinkler failure, might not even be your fault, and there's a death.

Ever been crossed examined by a sharp lawyer? I have and it isn't fun. A good one will give you the look and feel of an idiot even if you aren't one.

Not only that but think about a fire death. Practicing engineering without a license. Death. Wrongful death brought about by negligence or malfeasance. Same as playing doctor without a license? Prison time? Very real possibilities and might not even need to have a death involved.

This is serious stuff we're talking here and why I started this thread.