• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

IRC Hearings

Re: IRC Hearings

FM,

NAHB is blocking all Fire Service transmissions in the building. :mrgreen:

Hey, what date and time is the floor discussion going to start on the Sprinkler topic; so I can watch it on the webcast?

Uncle Bob
 
Re: IRC Hearings

I was in meetings most of the day. Did they debate the residential sprinkler issue? Wanted to watch the web cast but just did not have the time.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

I'm not suprized. That horse has been out of the barn for a year. I didn't think there was anyway to reign'em in.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Actually there was little support for the proposed changes to eliminate the sprinkler requirments. I think most building code folks have thrown in the towel, there was little support for the first proposal when it came to the floor, the rest went down in order. They're here to stay.......
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Somewhere, someone posted a link to an article about that particular part of the session. From what I read they brought in around 50 people that had been burned in residential fires. One lady, burned on her hand, arm and the side of her face, I believe, stated that she was trying to put out a fire in an ashtray when the fire caught her clothes on fire. She stated that if her home had sprinklers this would not have happened.

I'll look for the link.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Thanks Mule. The article was effective but by and large dumber than a bag of hammers. Res Sprinklers would have done absolutly nothing to prevent her injuries. Again, effective for their ajenda.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

jpranch said:
Thanks Mule. The article was effective but by and large dumber than a bag of hammers. Res Sprinklers would have done absolutly nothing to prevent her injuries. Again, effective for their ajenda.
Click to expand...
I am a residential sprinkler supporter but I agree, they would not have made much difference in this case. I am sure there are many more stories out there more compelling, but I do not advocate the sprinkler proponents use these people in their argument.

Those tactics do seem to work with Congress... :roll:
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Does this mean that the 2009 International Residential code will required fire sprinklers in all One and Two Family Dwellings?

Thank you,

Rick
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Rick:

Yes, and in the 2012 also if adopted by the jurisdiction as is and not amended out at the state or local level.

Others:

There was no testimony of a emotional level by those in support of sprinklers and was kept to statistical data references etc.

I also support RFS however; While it’s nice that the sprinklers stay in the residential code, the fire service dropped the ball once again by leaving the proceedings after the vote. Other important issues for the protection of floor assemblies were up for discussion and by leaving the proceedings once again, the fire service had limited numbers to gain the addition of assembly protection in the code once again.

The big picture failed to be seen by departing attendees is that, communities or jurisdictions that amend out the sprinkler requirements must now amend in protection of floor and light-weight materials and to date our state is not willing to do so :cry:
 
Re: IRC Hearings

I must have been asleep, or in the restroom..........never happened.

EDIT: I agree FM Burns, as in MN, the fire folks couldn't wait to get out of the room, the Mod didn't help by calling the break after all the sprinkler proposals were turned down.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Beach:

I did not testify on the RFS issue since there was no need to based on the flavor of the room. I did testify in support of protecting/fire blocking a wall cavity with dryer vents (shot down in flames at floor action) and opposed the proposal to removal of smoke alarms if sprinkled. Couldn't figure out which microphone to use though :lol:

The band wagon to support trade offs in structural protection for sprinklers is still a educational topic some in the fire service need to learn more on since they may not realize what effects this has for our members who don't get the requirements adopted.....JMHO
 
Re: IRC Hearings

Sometimes I have to wonder??? We as code officials are so concerned with building evac and MOE that we sometimes forget what happens after that? This is where all the elements of the code really come together. The floor or roof ratings, column protection in protected construction types, stand pipe systems, elevators, and the list goes on. All of us never want to have fatalities or injuries as a result of fire or other emergencies. This is a heck of a lot more than a one, two or three equation.

As far as "trade offs" go the I codes in my opinion have gone way too far. Just look at the exceptions for unprotected vertical openings. Need I say more? :roll:
 
Re: IRC Hearings

FM William Burns said:
JP:Yep, sorry to see it so widly spread. I had a very productive (hopefully) conversation with the training director for the IAFF and went into detail on how the focus on just sprinklers can have a far more dramatic effect on membership, since I'm still a card carrying member. We need to be active in code development but also need to be able to listen to our partners in the building code enforcement community when it comes to supporting "tradeoffs".

Safe travel and hope we can meet tomorrow.
Click to expand...
If sprinklers are amended out locally without evaluating the corresponding tradeoffs there will be disastrous consequences. There needs to be a push by the fire service to add language to all affected code sections that add/replace/increase passive fire protection requirements where sprinklers are not provided.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

You bet! Passive fire protection or static defend in place absolutly must play a major role. My point is that we as a whole have traded off too much for the presence of sprinkler systems.

Post Script: I have often wondered why we still hang 1/2" standard rock? Why not require type-x across the board for everything?
 
Re: IRC Hearings

All is not bad, some AHJs will adopt in in tact, others will adopt it amending sprinklers out, within a few years large statistical data can be amassed, lives saved, inadvertent release, mold damage claims, insurance company rates with and without, etc. The truth will then come out. In the meantime inadvertent release statistics are going to have to be obtained, the NFPA stopped collecting that data 15 or 20 years ago, somebody is going to have to pick up the slack.
 
Re: IRC Hearings

conarb, I had a inadvertent release a time or two. It was not pretty! I know, I 'm sorry but just could not resist! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top