• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Pa hb 377

Has anyone read the lead laws EPA has instituted? Read them. They are going to start regulating OUTDOOR lead because "it can be tracked in".

The money spent in lead remediation could be better spent in a sprinkler system, but that would be such a ridiculous burden...
 
TJacobs said:
Has anyone read the lead laws EPA has instituted? Read them. They are going to start regulating OUTDOOR lead because "it can be tracked in".The money spent in lead remediation could be better spent in a sprinkler system, but that would be such a ridiculous burden...
Click to expand...
Minor hijack,

Had a call yesterday - Home Depot is calling to check on build dates here before they do kitchen remodels. House in question was given CO in 1975 (pre-1978 cut-off) so HD won't do the remodel. The installers are not "lead certified".

mj
 
FM: I think all this unnecessary junk is playing on your mind! Soon you will need to be certified to handle the new Light bulbs that are not supposed to be place in the trash. God forbid you drop one while trying to put it in the lamp!
 
good work penn. for giving people the option! i heard rumors that a state senator here will be introducing a bill to do the same. just did a block grant housing rehab permit where it cost 9k to remove perfectly good siding that had some chipping lead paint. foolish waste of money that could have bought a sprinkler system.
 
Lets see...radon, lead base paint, asbestos, residential sprinklers, stormwater runoff, OSHA and whatever else some bureaucrat can come up with to regulate. Wages are not keeping up with the cost of compliance for all this BS.
 
I understand form one of the local Political people here, that from the Senate, they have the votes to defeat sprinklers in PA. The house has passed and it waits the Senate. The Govener will most likely sign the turn around.
 
Yep, should be taken care within a month, i hear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
March 12, 2011 7:23 AM EST

Pa. lawmakers begin repeal of home sprinkler law

By ROBB FREDERICK, Erie Times-News

robb.frederick@timesnews.com

State House members have voted to reverse a Jan. 1 mandate that requires fire-suppression sprinklers in all new Pennsylvania homes. The state Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

That's not exactly an about-face. The sprinkler requirement took effect without a direct vote. The measure was added to the Uniform Construction Code, a set of building standards adopted by the Department of Labor and Industry in 2004.

Local homebuilders had opposed the code change, and the lack of debate.

"You can't allow a third party to determine your state's laws, and not have them voted on," said Jason Hewitt, the executive director of the Builders Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania.

Area Realtors joined the fight, buffeting lawmakers with phone calls and e-mails. Some wondered how often the systems could malfunction.

"Say you have grandkids," said Marsha Marsh, the owner of Marsha Marsh Real Estate Services. "If they throw a toy up and it hits the sprinklers, will (the sprinklers) go off? What if you burn a toasted-cheese sandwich on the stove? Is that going to do it?"

The big question was what the systems would cost. Some critics put the figure at $3,000. Others said it could be $15,000.

"That's a scare tactic," said Raymond Lonabaugh, a regional manager for the National Fire Sprinkler Association, which supported the rule. "It's nonsense, that it's going to prevent homes from being built, and that it's going to throw us into another depression."

Area lawmakers weren't so sure.

"The fact is, we're in a recession," said State Rep. John Hornaman, of Millcreek Township, D-3rd Dist. "We're trying to recover from that recession. And one of the key elements of that recovery is home-building. At this point in time, I don't think it's a good idea to be placing mandates on home-building that are going to cost people significantly more money."

The rule bothered him for another reason. "I don't want any more mandates from the government, telling me what to do and how to do it," Hornaman said. "If you want to spend that money for what you consider extra protection, that should be up to you. But the buyer needs to make that choice."

The new House rule affects one- and two-family homes. Sprinklers will still be required in larger buildings.

Builders still have to offer the systems and explain their benefits. Buyers who opt out will have to add more fireproof materials to their floors.

State Rep. Patrick Harkins, of Erie, D-1st Dist., thought that was a good compromise.

"There are good points on both sides of the argument," Harkins said. "But we're overmandating things. And I just don't think we need to go down that road right now."

Twenty-four states now base their building codes on the Uniform Construction Code. But just one -- California -- will have an active sprinkler requirement if the Pennsylvania law is repealed.

ROBB FREDERICK can be reached at 870-1733 or by e-mail.
 
"What if you burn a toasted-cheese sandwich on the stove? Is that going to do it?"

And this is the level of knowledge that you are dealing with.........I had a citizen last week that when he found out we had adopted the requirement unamended, (soon to dissappear) swore that he had a family member that had a RFS discharge due to burning toast.

You just can't argue with stupidity.......and I'm friggen done with it. I fully anticipate that I will be directed to amend RFS's out........and I will be glad to do it, tired of the battle. I voted against them in MN, but when the RFS remained intact after another cycle , I left them in the body of the code........but I'm tired of it..........
 
Fatboy I agree: If it is the code I will enforce it. Voted against it for a number of reasons. Money is running the codes and not common sense. Politicians vote in response to money and votes they may receive. I still don't believe it should be a national mandate in the codes. But it is! PA adopted base on a great deal of burnt toast and special interest. They will most likely vote it out on similar principles. There are major +'s and -'s on each side of the debate. Having been killed twice on the vote and fight to keep them out of the code, I am now double dead and don't wish to fight that issue any more.
 
See ya in court!!!

Reprint from the Jan 2011 issue of PM Engineer

The Engineering Dilemma

As of Jan. 1, the 2009 International Residential Code mandates residential fire sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings. Photo courtesy of Uponor

by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD

Posted: January 1, 2011

There is no excuse not to include residential fire sprinklers in your designs.

Happy New Year! With the ringing in of Jan. 1, 2011, all of us in the engineering profession have been presented with a dilemma. I should indicate that this dilemma extends to architects, as well. You may be wondering what the concern is.

On Jan. 1, the 2009 ICC International Residential Code mandates residential sprinklers in all one- and two-family dwellings. The IRC had already mandated residential sprinklers in townhouses.

Prior to Jan. 1, the ICC International Building Code required sprinkler protection in all residential buildings. Furthermore, NFPA 5000 has always required all residential buildings to be protected with a residential sprinkler system.

The next edition of the IRC will be the 2012 edition. That is scheduled for publication later this year. The 2012 edition of the IRC also mandates residential sprinklers for all one- and two-family dwellings and townhouses.

As professional engineers, our first obligation is to the public, not our client. We are also required to follow accepted engineering practice. Accepted engineering practice means we have to follow the guidelines produced and developed by our industry. That includes the IRC, IBC and NFPA 5000.

What all this means is that from this day forward if you are involved in the design of systems in any one- or two-family dwelling or townhouse, you need to include a residential sprinkler system.

If you do not, you are jeopardizing your engineering license by not upholding your first obligation to protect the public, plus not upholding your obligations to follow accepted engineering practice.

The builder may not follow your plans. He may choose not to install the residential sprinkler system, but that is OK. You did your duty by showing the system on the plans.

The liability shifts to the builder if he chooses not to install the residential sprinkler system. I plan to also cover my bases by sending a letter to the builder or developer indicating that sprinklers are required.

Some Disagree

I was speaking to an engineering colleague last week regarding this very issue. He disagrees with me, saying that if the state or local politicians delete the sprinkler requirements from the code, the engineer has no obligation to design the system. There is no denying that the various state home builders’ associations have been spending millions lobbying their politicians to have the requirement removed from the adoption of the 2009 IRC.

Just because politicians do something that many of us consider stupid, it does not reduce the liability of professional engineers to do what they are charged to do.

In other words, we must protect the public.

I cannot fathom how any engineer could declare that residential sprinklers do not protect the public.

Litigation Waiting To Happen

I am sure some, or many, smart attorneys are just waiting in the wings for the first fire death in a home built after Jan. 1, 2011. I hate to say it, but it will unfortunately have to involve a fire death. With around 3,000 fire deaths a year in residential buildings, it won’t take long for a test case.

Having been involved in a number of lawsuits as an expert witness, I can envision the questions the attorney would ask.

Question: Mr. Ballanco, doesn’t the 2009 IRC require all one- and two-family dwellings to be sprinklered after Jan. 1, 2011?

Answer: Yes, but that section was stricken from the IRC when it was adopted by the state.

Question: Oh, so politicians receiving money from the home builder lobbyists voted to strike the sprinkler requirement, is that correct?

Answer: Yes.

Question: So, you just followed what the politicians adopted for protection of the single-family dwelling?

Answer: Yes, that is all that is required. We just have to follow the adopted code.

Question: You don’t have any obligation beyond following the code?

Answer: No.

Question: What is the requirement in your engineering licensing law whereby you have the obligation to protect the public?

Answer: That is true. We do that by following the code.

Question: But you didn’t follow the code. You followed what the politicians, receiving funding from home builder lobbyists, changed in the code, didn’t you?

Answer: The code is what the elected officials enact. It did not require residential sprinklers. That is what I followed.

Question: But the code, without amendments, developed by your profession, would require sprinklers for this home, wouldn’t it?

Answer: Yes, but I am not obligated to follow that code.

Question: If sprinklers were installed in this home, would there have been a fire death?

Answer: I don’t know.

Question: You don’t know, but you are an engineer. Shouldn’t you know?

Answer: Every fire is different.

Question: Has there ever been a fire death in a home, with sprinklers, experiencing the same fire as this home?

Answer: Not that I know of.

Question: So you just ignored your obligation as a licensed professional engineer to protect the public?

Include Sprinklers In Your Designs

That last question is what attorneys call a “got ya” question. How do you answer the question? If you have a good answer, then there shouldn’t be a problem with designing plumbing and mechanical systems in residential buildings and homes without including a residential sprinkler system.

If you are like me, you will be including a residential sprinkler system in residential buildings that you design. I know that residential sprinklers will protect the occupants of any residential building.

I also know that there will not be any fire deaths that will result in a trial.

Hence, I don’t fear any such line of questioning, because it will never occur.

Starting today, you should reduce your liability by providing a sprinkler system design for every residential building you design.

After all, that is what the documents that we develop require.

I am not going to leave my fate to some politician who doesn’t know a thing about construction safety.

Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD

jbengineer@aol.com

Julius Ballanco, P.E., is Editorial Director of PM Engineer and president of J.B. Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C. in Munster, IN. Prior to starting J.B. Engineering, he served as head of plumbing and mechanical engineering for Building Officials and Code Administrators International, one of the organizations that formed the International Code Council (ICC). His engineering consulting work includes the design of plumbing, mechanical and fire-protection systems; forensic engineering; training; and serving numerous manufacturers in different capacities. In addition, Ballanco is the current president of ASPE and a member of both ICC and IAPMO. He can be reached by e-mail at jbengineer@aol.com.
 
The best part of this bill is that the state can remove any code section in upcoming revisions due to the "economic and financial impact".I guess I will need a sharpie to black out half of the 2012 code when and if adopted by Pa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top