• 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

Sprinkler debate

If the water system goes (which was my arguement in Orlando in 2006), nothing else much matters. WHICH IS WHY I DON'T AGREE THAT REDUCING THE PASSIVE ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION IS A GOOD IDEA). wow, I feel better now.

Enforce fire rated construction if you allow houses close together. Trying to rely on the active, fire system is a false sense of security for everyone.

*step off my soap box, so I don't break my pelvis*
 
Peach,

I am like you. Let's require fire resistant construction, not rely on a mechanical system of some sort to protect things. If I build a fire resistant wall, and repair it when it gets damaged, it just sets there and does its job. A sprinkler system has to be maintained on a regular basis, there are several working parts in every system that can become clogged, or inoperable, or heads that were faulty when installed and it wasn't known. A properly constructed wall system needs to be inspected when its built and then it should just set there and do its job with no moving parts.
 
CBC 903.2.8 Group R. An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildiings with Group R fire area.

What is there to debate? Cut loose the dead horse and spit out the sour grapes!:razz: Enforce your new codes!!!!
 
in the area, we just had 5 houses succumb to fire... it started outside (cig butts discarded on a deck).. wind picked up.. vinyl siding caught fire.. wind carried fire to adjacent houses... I'm not sure how sprinklers would have been much help. Houses were really close together and "built to code".. whatever that means.
 
Beach,

Not every state is as screwed up as California. There is plenty to debate and lawmakers to influence with the facts. We are not all as blinded by the money that NFPA, NFSA and the pipe fitter unions have thrown at this issue. This is all about the money. Only fools believe that it will have any significant impact in saving lives.
 
Ah, yes...... incognito stooping to insults. Surprise, surprise........

I think your problem is a little more deep seated than RFS......did you get caught playing with matches? You really need to bring this up with your therapist.........

“The only real problem with ICC is that it is no longer a BUILDING OFFICIAL organization. We sold out to the fire service and we will only have in the building code what they allow us to have.”

“From what I understand the fire guy from Tennessee, Shane Ray I believe, is basically advocating that firefighters are idiots for entering any building that is on fire when they know that no one is... “

“I am more deeply concerned by the fact that we have turned our organization over to the fire service by giving them voting rights and they have no qualms about buying whatever best suits NFPA and NFSA. We have lost our organization and there does not appear to be any way to gain it back.”

“My new found confidence in the fire service overwhelming---not!! They are either idiots or ---not quite honest.”

“Do you really think the fire service folks would be so unethical and immoral as to slide this through without disclosing ALL the info? I mean after all these are the same people who routinely spike their wages right before retirement and screw Joe Citizen.”

“The fire guys really hated it when they had to answer that question. They try to qualify their answer with various degrees of BS but the answer is still ZERO.”

“They will cite some bogus reason for the information not being relevant but in the end the "need" for sprinklers is all about the obscene amount of money the sprinkler industry will make.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is there to debate?
Click to expand...
Plenty like global warming and green codes not every one thinks that all the "facts" are in and there is nothing left to debate.

Figures lie and liars figure as conarb pointed out in his post. Acurate data is needed to make rational non-emotional decisions when it comes to adopting codes. The code world has come to a point of basing decisions on what "feels" good and that the codes have to protect people from themselves.
 
My point is that it is now IN THE CODE. Debate all you want, but it seems like it would be more productive to debate it at the code hearings instead of on this board, where we repeatedly hear the same argument from both sides.... over and over and over. When all you have left is to throw insults, it starts looking pretty petty.........

If the code and common sense do not jive I will go with common sense...
Click to expand...
There are code sections that I don't agree with but I still enforce them because that is my job. If inspectors start using their personal opinions (common sense?) while performing inspections, they are doing a diservice to their employer, themselves, and the public.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But Beach, some of us live in states that the legislature has actually prohibited new codes for SFR sprinlklers. There is another thing too,......we don't have to adopt or buy the cow's new code, we can stay right where we are and see what happens.

We are enforcing our code here, it just doesn't include SFR sprinklers.

I also think that one way to encourage change at ICC is to not buy their new codes and products when they have dumb things in them.

The other thing is, if my vote at the hearing is not going to count because they allow special interest to stuff the ballot box, I am not going to spend my money to go vote. I will go get training that ICC does not get a cut of the profits, to keep my certs up, buy what few things I have too that I can only get from ICC, but thats it.

Personally if California is the leader in cutting edge on codes, I will stick to the model T version I use.

And if the ICC was a real business that had real competition for its customers, it would not still be in business today.
 
Our state has not adopted the 09 IRC they are still debating the merits. The code hearings and adoption process has been tarnished over the last decade so states and local jurisdictions are not willing to accept the codes in their entirety without review just because the ICC published them.

I remember back in 94 the SBCCI swiming pool code included a new alarm requirement for doors leading from the residence directly to the pool. It specificaly spelled out the DB levels, how long it operated after the door closed and some other specifics. When we tried to enforce the adopted code there was not a manufacture in the world that made a system to comply with what was adopted. Point being code hearings are not perfect and all the information provide during the process may not be accurate especially if there is an agenda (finacial or social) behind getting the requirement into law
 
Do whatever you want! We have cities here with RFS requirements since the seventies..... all those "problems" (theories) you people cite, just don't happen. In California, I believe we call it "empirical evidense". But gee, us goofy Californians are just plain crazy stupid, right?

It's great you're enforcing your codes, good for you! If you want to pick and choose what code you want to use for what you think is best for everybody, feel free! I'm not going to judge....
 
Beach:

I wish you fire guys would expend 1/10th the time, money, and energy attempting to ban the engineered wood products that are threatening to harm you, and the foams that are threatening to gas you to death as you have spent on the RFS requirement, you should with all the money we are paying you.
 
beach said:
Do whatever you want! We have cities here with RFS requirements since the seventies..... all those "problems" (theories) you people cite, just don't happen. In California, I believe we call it "empirical evidense". But gee, us goofy Californians are just plain crazy stupid, right? It's great you're enforcing your codes, good for you! If you want to pick and choose what code you want to use for what you think is best for everybody, feel free! I'm not going to judge....
Click to expand...
That's just it Beach, we are doing what we are HIRED to do and legally allowed to do. Enforce the codes adopted by the Feds, State and City.

I stand by my earlier post (again call me cruel or heartless) but when we start talking about spending the type of money required to save 3000 people a year (and I don't think even with sprinklers you will save them all and those are NFPA numbers not mine) it is a waste of money. People will die in fires each and every year and there is nothing we can do about it. Again those 3000 people represent 0.000967 of one percent of the entire nation. If you really want to save as many lives as possible "feed the children" for 40 cents a day, you will save a lot more lives each and every year.

I do not pick and choose the codes I will enforce, the Federal, State and City governments pick them for me. And just because the ICC wrote a new code doesn't mean that the new one in better than the older ones. The ICC is fallible just like any other big corporation. Hell look at the number of cars Toyota had to recall, big corporations make mistakes too. The "Mini Soda" and Baltimore hearings proved that the ICC isn't interested in whats right, its interested in what makes them money. I spent my personal money to be at Mini Soda, never felt so cheated in my life and haven't bothered to go to anything run by ICC since.

I didn't say that Californians are goofy, but I will stay where I am and not head toward California to live.

Please post the "empirical evidence" about how SFR sprinklers are so good from the California info. I just haven't seen anything yet that impresses me or makes sense.

And by the way Beach I think you are judging me as being dumb, stupid or ignorant because I don't agree with you, but thats cool, all those words describe me and if you are picking on me you are leaving everyone else alone. :p

In closing I will agree to disagree with you and welcome any information that you think might change my mind. I just haven't seen data that makes me think SFR sprinklers are worth the cost. That's my opinion, feel free to try and change me, but give me the data.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hope this doesn't sound like I'm defending the ICC (I'm not!), but the ICC didn't put RFS into the code, the voting membership did. Now, we all know that not all members get to vote, only those with travel budgets big enough to attend the hearings, but that's an entirely different issue (and one worth more debate than this one, perhaps).

So, since the membership voted (based on an inordinate number of voting members that are usually not in attendance), you can't hold the ICC responsible for this solely. If you want the code changed or reverted back to what is was, then change it - the ICC can't change the code even if they wanted to!
 
Vegas Paul,

I agree, but even with the amendment about not accepting money to go to the hearings etc. they haven't fixed the problem. They need to define better who a voting member can be. I do not for one minute believe that the amendment not allowing you to accept a free trip etc. to the hearings will deter anyone and I don't see how ICC can enforce this rule anyhow. From what I see of the amendment, I just have to plan a little farther ahead to be able to stuff the ballot box at the hearings.

I also think that yes the membership has let the ICC get out of hand (and yes, I am part of that membership and watched it happen too). No one had a clue how quickly a monster organization like the ICC could have the problems it did. And we don't have a clue how to rein it in now. The horse has gotten the bit between its teeth and is running away with us. I still remember my legacy code, there was an office with a real person in it 2 hours away, I had and knew who my rep was, and I could talk to the president of the code board and the CEO of the organization. Guess I am just a small town farm boy longing for the better days. :)
 
Texas Transplant,



My opinion of you is not dumb, stupid, or ignorant…I really don’t know why you would think that, I don’t judge people by what state they are from, or if they agree with me or not.



Again, if you are enforcing the codes as adopted…that’s great! Regardless if you enforce RFS or not.



Most of the opponents of RFS, in my opinion, didn’t and or don’t really know anything about RFS because they were not used to seeing them, this was obvious when this debate started on the ICC BB last year. Opponents were making incorrect negative statements left and right about RFS, these statements were from code officials, contractors, inspectors, etc. Every time they were corrected by a proponent, they would take a different tact until it just became bashing the fire service in general. Looking back, it’s pretty embarrassing for them, in my opinion. That’s where I find the ignorance.



As I’ve said before, most in California have had RFS requirements for at least twenty years and a few, more than thirty years. The opponents start throwing out theories to try to prove a point when they really don’t have any long term experience. The “empirical evidence” is that we have had RFS long enough to know about any major problems…. And we haven’t had any! How can I provide data for something that hasn’t happened?



I won’t even try to make sense of the conspiracy theorists, for obvious (I hope..) reasons.

As far as feeding the hungry, we should all be doing that regardless of what we think about RFS.
 
First, I would not disagree that RFS work as designed and that they will, for the most part, sit there benignly until called upon to operate. But the fact is that based on the number of fires in any given year the cost far exceeds the benefits. If there was truly a need and benefit the insurance companies would have been all over this years ago. As it is, even for those companies that offer a premium reduction for sprinkler installation, the cost of the sprinklers will never be "payed back" by premium savings. Why?? Because the number of fires in which they have a pay out is inconsequential.

Secondly the fire service likes to throw out the 3,000 fire deaths per year and eluding to how RFS will result in saving many lives per year. Bullstuff!!! It will be several decades before even a small fraction will show up in their statistics. It is the older housing stock that is going up in flames on a regular basis, not the homes built in the last 30 years. And with the widespread installation of AFCI's we are going to see even fewer fires starting. RFS's are nothing more than a product with marginal value that has been marketed to a sector who will basically rally behind virtually anything that the Godlike NFPA deems necessary to provide for health, safety and welfare of the ignorant public. Nothing more than corporate greed at its very worst.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Beach,

I didn't take it personally and did not intent anything I said personally. :)

It just shows that we are on opposite sides of the debate and neither of us are likely to change. Most of that is our individual perspectives on the matter. For me, a big part of that is, if it has parts that have to operate after setting for an extended period of time and if it requires any sort of maintenance to make sure it works, it ain't gonna work when you need it, because most people will not maintain it or take care of it the way it should be. I also look at the millions of sprinkler heads and components that have been recalled over the last few years. We have the manpower in my City to make sure the commercial and multi-family systems are maintained each year, but I don't have manpower to go to each single family home and make sure they have been maintained, unless the City fathers really increase my staff and budget, and let me charge a fee to do it that won't be popular or cheap.

The other thing is I do think that the ICC is broken as far as the way the code gets modified. And I am cynical enough to think that the fire sprinkler industry went to the effort to push through sprinklers, not to save lives, but to grow the industry and have a captive nation to sell to.

Yall have a good weekend. Its great weather here, and there are some great outdoor concerts to be heard, think I will sneak out early today.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's amazing that this sprinker debate is still going on; long after the Mini-soda hearings. It has been the most divisive topic on both the old ICC BB and this forum.

And, yet it has also brought many new members to both forums; especially folks from the Fire Services; many of which came and stayed. It is also responsible for more interest in the Fire Codes; and, has contributed to having more knowledgeable fire service people here to help answer fire code questions.

It has brought about new friendships and a has contributed to the growth of our group,

Thanks sprinklers,

Uncle Bob
 
Plenty of places in California have not adopted the RSF requirement................................
 
Rio,

Considering the 2010 CBC (requiring RFS) does not become effective until Jan. 1st, 2010 you are probably correct, most cities are in the adoptive process as we speak, getting ready for Jan. 1st. (2010)

If you meant that "plenty of places" in Calif. are not adopting the RFS section of the 2010 CBC, you are misinformed.....they can't make the code less restrictive and "plenty" (at least in SoCal) have some sort of RFS in their adoptive ordinances anyway.
 
i found out something pretty interesting from an uncle who sells homeowners insurance in ohio. the local firemarshal(his cousin) in a very small town where my uncle covered 25 homes. apparently there is a rating system whether state wide or locally, (not sure) that rates fire-response-times. the community fire departments get a score, higher rating = quicker response times. slower times = worse scoring until, like this particular community, they become "Un-Rated." at that point, my uncle's insurance company dropped all the policies since they were linked to a "rated-community." once the community became unrated, their insurance premium went up 5 times. most could not afford this, nor could they easily sell their homes since insurance companies don't hand out mortgages without homeowners and when the insurance premium is more than the mortgage on a 60 grand home......yadda yadda......

interesting tidbit is that the scoring system is weighted. if responding to a building with a sprinkler system, the marshal claims that the response time is allowed to be a percentage slower than the time it takes to get to a building without a sprinkler. therefore giving the fire department a better score and less chance of losing their rating and therefore less chance of the insurance company dropping the homeowners........

moral of this story, if we don't get it one way, we're getting it another. the idea that "one can't make everyone happy" is long gone.......the new idea is "i'll get the government to force them to be."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top