• 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.

Pa hb 377

Hey, you could be like Michigan where the new self proclaimed "Nerd" Gov. can just come into any city take over through a "special master" and abolish everything.

Sould be moving soon if anyone wants to buy a nice house in nice neighborhood with nice pool :)
 
From a Pennsilvanian:

I think it speaks volumes about political clout when I hear on the radio this AM that the sprinkler repeal bill is the FIRST piece of legislation to hit the governor's desk.

Looking at all the concerns the legislature should address and discuss: Our Budget, Marcellus Shale taxes, our budget, education cuts....

REPEALING SPRINKLERS is the top dog in their scheduling priorities.



Technical merit, affordability, firefighter safety, and safe homes to start cutting the number of fire deaths all take a back seat to the PBA's desire to keep their builders profitable through political clout and campaign contributions.

The amount of propaganda out there would have been humorous if so many lives weren't at stake.



On a Monday, the House voted 154-39, the next night 7 kids died in a fire 28 miles away. Wed AM a fire in Bucks County went unnoticed, since it was sprinklered and they spent the night in their house- minimal damage.

Undeterred by these two illustrations of home fires with and without sprinklers, the Senate added a requirement that future code changes will need to have a 2/3 majority of the Review and Advisory Committee. The bill now awaits the governor's signature, he's already pledged to sign it.



The legislature hands the building code over to a group a Commonwealth Court judge felt compelled to describe as "disingenuous" after they denied the PBA in their second court case.
Click to expand...
 
Beach: The post speaks volumes! You have been around this since the beginning as some others. I will enforce what is the law. If Pa votes it out so be it. With respect to other that favorite them there seems to be good argument on both sides. I wish Politics could stay out of the code process.

BTW: I had to click on the links you have at the bottom of the page. Just because it said don't!
 
Congratulations to the citizens of Pennsylvania!!! Finally your elected officials were able to act in your best interests and ignored the doomsday blather from the fire cartel. Once again commonsense and rational minds rule the day. It is commendable that Pennsylvania and other states are setting an example that many other states will soon follow.
 
incognito: On some points I would agree with your post. However, this is special interest in reverse of what happened at ICC hearings. Now sprinklers don't exist even as an option for those communities that feel a need for when that type of protection is warranted. So PA has come full circle and a handful of politicians have cast a vote for something they have NO understanding about.
 
What about the wall bracing part of the bill incognito? Any thought on that or did you not read anything and just felt like blowing hot air?
 
Well some may not like the way it is happening or that some are happy that it is happening but from what I hear the state of Nebraska has also amended the sprinkler requirements out of the 2009 IRC. I do think they allowed local jurisdictions to amend sprinklers back in if they choose. Does someone have a count on the number of states requiring sprinklers and the number that do not? Even better is it possible to identify what individual states have done?

rshuey--somewhere earlier in this thread I must have missed mention (or completely forgotten)of wall bracing requirements. Would you please identify what comment number references this issue.
 
rshuey---It would appear you are in need of an old fashioned remedy. I understand crow goes well with foot-in-mouth disease

RJJ---Interesting. And what would lead you to believe that they knew what they were voting for when they left sprinklers in the residential code? It is more logical that they have become better informed on the subject over time and corrected their initial actions which were based on dubious character of the fire cartel unions.
 
If it be true, what great news that the elected officials in the state of Nebraska have seen through the misinformation spewed forth by the fire cartel. I can only hope the fire official from Cleveland who implored his fire "brothers and sisters" to stay at the code hearings in Minneapolis is fully aware of the state by state rejection of the corrupt, immoral and unethical actions of the fire cartel.
 
Jeff: I believe that it will hold and the vote of House and Senate will be signed.

rshuey: The wall bracing issue I would be divided on. The code writers have tossed out all the wall bracing of the past and installed a totally new section. Some major good areas and at the same time over kill. To apply this to all regions of the country is IMHO to much. As an inspector, I will enforce it. Some of the nail patterns are a bit to much and again IMHO pulverize the wood panel. Just an old Carpenter speaking.

Incongnito: I vote against sprinklers in the Twin Cities and in Baltimore. I have spoken out regarding the vote fix that has occurred. On the overhand, I have spent time researching the effects, cost and added protection that afford benefits to the occupants. From a protection standpoint I have moved closer to center on the issue. I believe local AHJ's should have the right to choose.

Further, I have learned from people on this BB and the old such as FM, Beach, and quite a few others regarding the plus side of them. The politicians in PA are only voting base on dollars of support. Not one of them understands the issues either sprinklers or wind. As stated before the sprinklers in PA are not even an option. They are not placed back in the appendix, a place they should have been left in the first place.
 
RJJ said:
Not one of them understands the issues either sprinklers or wind. As stated before the sprinklers in PA are not even an option. They are not placed back in the appendix, a place they should have been left in the first place.
Click to expand...
IF you read the bill you will find that "(2) A builder of a one-family or two-family dwelling subject to the International Residential Code shall, at or before the time of entering into the purchase contract, do all of the following: i) Offer to a buyer the option to install or equip, at the buyer's expense, an automatic fire sprinkler system in the building or dwelling unit designed and installed in accordance with the provisions of section R313.2.1 (relating to design and installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems) of the International Residential Code (2009 edition). ...

The bill also requires braced wall panels, albeit the 2006 IRC version.
 
I did read it. It comes down to smoke and mirrors. Oh yes I offered it to the buyer, they decided to have granite top instead.

Further, I am ok with 2006 for wall bracing. However, there are some thing in the 09 that I feel are pretty good. ( Not ALL)

The argument of offering it as an options has been discussed for several years now and a buyer who is informed can always ask to have sprinklers, but that really doesn't happen. I also have vote twice against the mandate.
 
Just got this email...

So, the very first bill signed by Governor Corbett is one that we are certain will result in loss of life.

It will also stack the deck against any energy or safety standards in the future.

It will also increase taxes in the long run by requiring fire services that could have been curtailed with sprinklers.

It will also preclude premium reductions for many consumers who will now not have the advantage of safer homes.

Why are we doing this again?

Oh, that's right - it's that whole government mandate thing.

While we're at it, let's do away with education requirements - kids should be able to choose what they feel like learning,right?

How about environmental mandates - isn't it time to roll back the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and all other protections?

We can make a whole lot more money if we just ignore all mining, drilling and combustion standards.

I guess we should do away with the entire social safety net as well. Who really cares if we take care of our neighbors?

It takes my tax dollars and my freedom away when we start feeding the poor and healing the sick.

This is a sad day and a wake up call for anyone with any sense of compassion.

Given the prevailing political winds and the willingness of the current leadership to tack their course to whichever way those winds blow, I cringe to think what Act 2, 3, 4, 5 will look like.

For those of you who may be thinking that I am on a liberal screed, remember this: the constitution created a republic - not a democracy.

Those who represent us are expected to lead - not to follow the misinformed masses.
 
Both sides are claiming that the other side is comprised of "misinformed masses." You believe you're right, they believe they're right. Most of what you posted about is completely outside the scope of what code professionals have control over, and will do nothing to change the minds of your opponents regarding residential sprinklers.

The first side to give up on the emotional pleas and start focusing on verifiable facts is going to have a head start in getting their argument accepted. There are ways around any prohibition if you are convincing enough.
 
rshuey--Boo friggin hoo. Sprinklers can't win on the facts alone and that is the sole reason they are going down to defeat in state after state. If not for the sprinkler industry and fire service leadership prostituting those unfortunate enough to have suffered a loss of a loved one, this whole mess would not have got as far as it did. Whereas at one time jurisdictions could adopt the appendix on fire sprinklers, some states have totally taken that option away and that is directly a result of what occurred in Minneapolis and Baltimore. If sprinkler supporters had an ounce of sense they would market their products to consumers and builders. Yeah thats right MARKET it, sell your product! You are not losing out because people are putting in granite countertops, lawn irrigation or audio/video rooms. Consumers and builders are not buying your product because you would rather pass a law and shove it up their A$$. And you need to get insurance companies to give significant premium reductions, maybe on both life and homeowners, if sprinklers are installed--a minimum of 25%. If insurance are unwilling to do so, it only becomes more evident that sprinklers are virtually useless and expensive systems sold by hucksters trying to milk billions from home buying consumers.
 
incognito, I just posted an email I had received. never said it was my stance on the bill. Stop taking stuff on the interwebs soo surrus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Effective immediately, as a result of the Governor signing HB 377, any new applications for one and two family dwellings (under the IRC) are exempt from the residential sprinkler requirements in the 2009 IRC.

However, those permits, when issued, are required to comply with these additional requirements for floor systems in dwellings that are NOT EQUIPPED without an automatic sprinkler system:

Fire protection of floors. Floor assemblies, not required elsewhere in this code to be fire resistance rated, shall be provided with a ½ inch gypsum wallboard membrane, 5/8 inch wood structural panel membrane, or equivalent on the underside of the floor framing member.

Exceptions:

1. Floor assemblies located directly over a space protected by an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section P2904, NFPA13D, or other approved equivalent sprinkler system.

2. Floor assemblies located directly over a crawl space not intended for storage or fuel-fired appliances.

3. Portions of floor assemblies can be unprotected when complying with the following:

3.1 The aggregate area of the unprotected portions shall not exceed 80 square feet per story.

3.2 Fire blocking in accordance with Section R302.11.1 shall be installed along the perimeter of the unprotected portion to separate the unprotected portion from the remainder of the floor assembly.

4. Wood floor assemblies using dimension lumber or structural composite lumber equal to or greater than 2-inch by 10-inch nominal dimension, or other approved floor assemblies demonstrating equivalent fire performance.

In addition, the 2009 IRC requirements for wall bracing no longer apply. Instead, they have been replaced with the 2006 IRC wall bracing requirements.

Automatic sprinkler systems ARE STILL REQUIRED in all IRC townhouses and multi-family dwellings, as regulated under the IBC.

There will be more to come, but these are the principal issues that everyone needs to be aware of this morning.

Bob Buddenbohn

PABCO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top