# Pa hb 377



## docgj

Do any of you Pa guys know the status of the vote on HB 377? They were supposed to vote today at 11:00. Nothing showing on the Pa. web site. Just got back from a sprinkler class. Instructor called his contact at the state level near the end of class and said that it looked like residential sprinklers were going to come out of the code!

docgj


----------



## jar546

That is why I have refused to pay for any IRC sprinkler training.  I was always suspect that our legislators would find a way to eliminate it.  Who knows the status?


----------



## jar546

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2011&sind=0&body=H&type=B&BN=0377


----------



## inspecterbake

It is still in the house they don't have the support they need but that just means there are deals being made GOOD OLE BOYS CLUB HAHAHA


----------



## rshuey

Word is HB 377 has passed. Sprinklers will now be an option. "Would you like corian or granite? Sprinklers or no sprinklers?


----------



## docgj

rsheuy,

Thats the word I received at the end of my PennBoc meeting today (Noonish). Glad it was a free class! Still nothing on the pa web site.

docgj


----------



## docgj

Strange? Just tried to log into Pa Legislature site. Not there?


----------



## rshuey

That is strange. PA put out a lot of money for training and certs for nothing.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

They escaped to Wisconsin.


----------



## SBerg

The bill was sent to Appropriations.

Failed 4 times. Not passed.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/HS/2011/0/20110302.htm


----------



## RJJ

The PA UCC is about as screwed up as the state politicians. They demand us to have certs and change the rules as we go. Then ADA and L&I hangs us out to dry during audits. Part of the day is spent CYA! The rest of the day is spent trying to get out from under the bus that the local politicians are on. And they will through you under the bus at the blink of an eye and yet we are suppose to serve and protect. Got to love the job.


----------



## docgj

sberg,

So what does that mean? Is it dead? Or does the legislature have a chance to mess with the codes again?


----------



## jar546

They will always have an opportunity to manipulate them.


----------



## incognito

Heres wishing the contractors, developers and responsible inspectors good luck in eliminating the sprinkler requirements in PA.


----------



## rshuey

HB 377 passed yesterday. It is headed to the Senate. Crazy.


----------



## RJJ

I guess Tyco didn't pay for enough Golf and Drinks at the last outing!?


----------



## rshuey

I hit our local state rep with a stop work order this past summer for an in-ground pool with no permits. This ****ed him right off. He hates the codes now. So-sponsored this bill.


----------



## RJJ

It seems that many in PA feel they are above the code. Politics often plays a big part and they are quick to shove us under the bus if we miss something. I would cite the Pope if he was in violation. I don't care and the longer I do this job the more I feel this way. The is a process to change laws. What is happening in PA is with in the process, so if the vote is no sprinklers then so be it! However, I hate with a passion how the system gets manipulated by the stake holders! I will not rant! I feeling have said my in Baltimore, the twin Cities and all over the ICC old BB. Not going to die on this hill! Too much money in play.


----------



## incognito

Congrats to NAHB and everyone else responsible for overturning the ridiculous sprinkler requirements!!!! Great to see special interest groups and profiteering companies sent packing by the PA House. Hopefully the PA Senate has as much wisdom and foresight as the PA House. That leaves California as....well the overall situation in California speaks for itself.


----------



## Forest

incognito,

              ridiculous, is not it.Money would be the answer.As for the question. How many lives were lost in SF home fires in your state over the winter months


----------



## rshuey

Forest said:
			
		

> incognito,              ridiculous, is not it.Money would be the answer.As for the question. How many lives were lost in SF home fires in your state over the winter months


7 Children just last night. Single-family home, ages 7 months to 11 years.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/03/09/2569901/trooper-fire-in-rural-pa-farmhouse.html


----------



## steveray

Smoke detectors?....How old was the house?.....Sad story.....


----------



## inspecterbake

Old farm house early 1900 just knowing the area I would say they were AMISH or Mennonite.


----------



## inspecterbake

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/as_firetrucks_move_out_friends.html


----------



## FM William Burns

Again such a shame!


----------



## TJacobs

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...


----------



## FM William Burns

Tj

Unbelievable.............man this kind of stuff is.... either more noticeable as I age or I'm really geting more p***ed off as I age.


----------



## mjesse

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...


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


----------



## RJJ

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!


----------



## pwood

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.


----------



## incognito

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.


----------



## RJJ

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.


----------



## rshuey

Yep, should be taken care within a month, i hear.


----------



## mgmuehling

The Senate isn't scheduled to meet again until April 5th


----------



## RJJ

MG: Welcome to our BB. glad to have another form PA on board!


----------



## FM William Burns

You PA'ers...think Jeff geve you guys a flat rate....


----------



## RJJ

LOL! Now FM we all get the same rate! Watch you mail something is on the way within the next few days! Great Jerky!


----------



## mark handler

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.


----------



## fatboy

"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..........


----------



## RJJ

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.


----------



## forensics

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.


----------



## rshuey

HB 377 passed Senate Appropriations. Now onto Senate. Vote today was 18-8.


----------



## RJJ

From what I have been told they have the vote to remove sprinklers!


----------



## mgmuehling

H.B. 377 passed the Senate this afternoon 33-17 with all amendments defeated. Now back to the House for a concurrence vote


----------



## RJJ

Who has a link for this and what amendments have been defeated.


----------



## inspecterbake

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/amendments/byDateAction.cfm?sYear=2011&sInd=0&chamber=S&theDate=04/12/2011


----------



## FM William Burns

Which one has "legs" Axe it out or Local Control?


----------



## Forest

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.


----------



## FM William Burns

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


----------



## RJJ

Thanks for the link inspectorbake! FM this is going to be an issue for all inspectors. Things will get much worst before it get better.


----------



## beach

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.


----------



## RJJ

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!


----------



## beach

You clicked on the link? Now you know where you're at!


----------



## RJJ

Please include a link for map quest! I am lost!


----------



## incognito

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.


----------



## RJJ

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.


----------



## rshuey

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?


----------



## beach

Incognito said:



> Absolutely the codes are just a guideline. We all pick and choose what is near and dear to our hearts. Amend the BS out or just outright ignore it.


----------



## Min&Max

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

Hb 377 bill is here. They added wall bracing to be removed with sprinklers...

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2011&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0377&pn=1520


----------



## incognito

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.


----------



## incognito

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.


----------



## jar546

HB 377 still not signed by the Gov.  Not sure it will be from the scuttlebutt I've been hearing.  These things are normally signed pretty quick.


----------



## RJJ

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.


----------



## rogerpa

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.


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.


----------



## RJJ

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.


----------



## rshuey

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.


----------



## permitguy

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.


----------



## incognito

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.


----------



## rshuey

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.


----------



## inspecterbake

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


----------



## beach

Congratulations!


----------



## beach

Don't worry rshuey, he just has some anger issues to deal with (think 5'2" with itty bitty hands.....)


----------



## fatboy

Just heard the Gubner signed the bill.....done deal.


----------



## beach

Hence the congratulations!  http://www.dailylocal.com/articles/2011/04/26/news/srv0000011523613.txt


----------



## fatboy

Yeah, I see now that Inspector Bake posted it 8 hours ago, missed that earlier.


----------



## Min&Max

rshuey,

I must admit that you have me somewhat confused. In previous posts, #5,15 & 17, it was my impression that you were a RFS supporter. Now after post #67, which is clearly critical of repealing RFS in Pennsylvania, you seem to not have an opinion or position on the issue. Incognito may be blunt, even abrasive to some, but at least you do not have to guess about his position on the issue.

beach,

#73. Really. Starting personal attacks seems a bit unprofessional.


----------



## beach

Min&Max,

I completely agree with your assessment as to my being "unprofessional", would you also consider these comments unprofessional?:



> “My new found confidence in the fire service overwhelming---not!! They are either idiots or ---not quite honest.”
> 
> “What would make anyone think that a lazy, clock-watching union worker is better than a non-union worker.”
> 
> “Forensics you are truly pathetic.
> 
> “We certainly ran across a few egomanics such as yourself…….”
> 
> “Oh and please keep up your asinine ranting and ridiculous examples of cost,etc. along with the rest of the fire boys. You made winning easy and there is nothing better than winning.
> 
> “Sorry beach but I am not interested in the Charlie Sheen mess and the media from the land-of-the-out-of-touch(California)”
> 
> “rshuey---It would appear you are in need of an old fashioned remedy. I understand crow goes well with foot-in-mouth disease”
> 
> “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 can go on.

Sometimes you need to lower yourself to the same level to be understood........


----------



## Min&Max

beach,

I am not sure that cherry picking previous comments out of old threads is entirely fair. Were the comments you quoted in response to others statements or unprovoked rants? Having been to a Fire Team USA seminar in which Fire Marshall Shane Ray spoke I can confirm that he was very critical of firemen entering buildings which were on fire and unoccupied. I do not recall his exact words but terms such as crazy, stupid and idiotic were certainly applicable. While I enjoy watching the "active" debate and banter I do not believe your comment in post #73 was necessary. Just my opinion. I will now shut up and continue lurking.


----------



## rshuey

Min&Max said:
			
		

> rshuey,I must admit that you have me somewhat confused. In previous posts, #5,15 & 17, it was my impression that you were a RFS supporter. Now after post #67, which is clearly critical of repealing RFS in Pennsylvania, you seem to not have an opinion or position on the issue. Incognito may be blunt, even abrasive to some, but at least you do not have to guess about his position on the issue.


Those were just impartial statements actually. The only crazy part was the amount of money tax payers put out to train people to inspect the systems and learn the code. The state charges 4.00 per permit for education. Seems like a crazy waste waste of taxpayers money. If you actually knew my position, it would be scary. I prod both sides to learn more about the subject. Just cause someone rattles your cage doesn't mean you have to bark.


----------



## Min&Max

Is the $4.00 surcharge on every permit--electrical, plumbing, mechanical and building? Does the $4.00 cover education for RFS only or does it apply to all continuing education needs? Doubt your position on RFS would be scary. You are either for or against. Even those that are against are not opposed to letting homeowners have them installed if they choose.


----------



## rshuey

I'm not big on requiring them. Although I have to play like I was ****ed at work.(politics)

I prefer to allow the homeowner to choose, so I am happy. The 4.00 is collected on all permits and was used last year to help put on education expos and classes. Of course, 90% of those classes were for RFS.

I guess to sum it up, I dislike when campaign contributions play a role in public safety. Happens all the time though.


----------



## incognito

rshuey--arf, arf. Sorry but I am not good at letting things pass. Sometimes a good thing and other times not so much.


----------



## incognito

beach--well surfer boy, it is quite easy to cite statements out of context of a thread as a whole and cast someone in a poor light. Easy, but juvenile at best. I have an idea, how about you show up at the ABM in Phoenix and I will introduce you to all 5'2" of me and my itty bitty hands. Should be an interesting conversation. Shoot I will even buy the first beer.


----------



## RJJ

incognito: I will try to be @ ABM and would be glad to meet! Sprinklers are going to be around and I am sure they will produce a great deal of debate as time goes forward.

rshuey: The $4.00 is to be use for all education of inspectors. I haven't seen a breakdown on how the money is spent. For most class we still need to pay the same amount.

So how does this really work?


----------



## rshuey

Man RJJ I wish I knew. The classes PSATS hold are supposedly reduced cost??

I know that the figure was appx 750,000 permits were issued last year. That's a crapload of money unaccounted for.


----------



## jar546

Unfortunately, HB377 reverted wall bracing back to the 2006 IRC.  Great!! The builders are so stupid that they actually screwed themselves.  There are things that you can do in the 2009 that you cannot do in the 2006 without going to an RDP.  There are more methods to choose from in 2009 and it is well explained and written out.  Although there are some minor issues that had to be clarified, they were addressed in the 2012 IRC.  All that the builders saw was that wall bracing went from 6 pages to 28 so rather than educate themselves, they decided to throw money at the legislators and lobbyists to get the code reverted.

If they would put 1/2 the money they do in trying to change the code towards educating themselves, they might actually get to know what they are doing.

The problem with wall bracing in the past is that it was never properly enforced by the code officials so the builders continued to do whatever they wanted until there was some education for everyone in the 2009 IRC wall bracing.  If the code officials would actually enforce the 2006 wall bracing methods properly from the beginning, the builders probably would not have fought to get it reverted.  They are in for a wake-up call.


----------



## RJJ

It sure is! And the class fee has not come down! So how much being sucked up by the state? The only free class I had in the last two years was put on by two local engineers on wall bracing. A real nice jester and really well presented.


----------



## RJJ

Jeff: The Home builders miss the requirement for Arc fault! DA! that costs more the wall bracing. You are right its is the amount of pages. Not the 150.00 it takes to comply.


----------



## rshuey

the best classes I have taken were the Fire inspector classes that were down at Bucks Co Community College, and a few classes i attended at Penn State, both were not cheap!


----------



## Rick18071

*news flash for PA*

The governor signed the bill.

No sprinklers needed if floors are protected underneath with 1/2" drywall or 5/8 wood panels.

not to apply to:

1. a floor over a area that is sprinklered

2. a floor over a crawl space not intended for storage or fuel-fired appliances

3. a floor with an unprotected area less than 80 sq. ft.

4. a wood floor assembly using dimension lumber or structural composite lumber equal to or greater than 2" by 10" nominal dimension or a floor assembly demonstrating equivalent fire performance. (sounds like wood I-beams, floor trusses and floor joists smaller than 2X10must be protected)

The bill also gets rid of the "09 wall bracing requirements and sends you back to the '06 requirements.

The bill also gives a break for log walls if the heating equipment meets or exceeds a list of requirements.


----------

