# IRC Hearings



## FM William Burns (Oct 28, 2009)

I think someone here is trying to jammmmmmmmm my transmissions :mrgreen:


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 28, 2009)

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


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

UB:

It's looking like it will probably be around 5 pm to 8 pm EST.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Tonight?  the 28th?

Uncle Bob


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Yep, BTW Rjj says hi


----------



## jpranch (Oct 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## beach (Oct 28, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Sprinklers WON  :mrgreen:


----------



## jpranch (Oct 28, 2009)

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.


----------



## fatboy (Oct 29, 2009)

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.......


----------



## Mule (Oct 29, 2009)

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.


----------



## Mule (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Here it is!

Link to Article


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

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.


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 29, 2009)

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.


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:


----------



## Rider Rick (Oct 29, 2009)

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


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 29, 2009)

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:


----------



## fatboy (Oct 29, 2009)

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.


----------



## beach (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Hey FMWB,

I thought I caught a glimpse of you at the podium....was that you?


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 29, 2009)

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


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

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:


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 29, 2009)

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.


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.


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

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?


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Amen!


----------



## conarb (Oct 29, 2009)

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.


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

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:


----------



## beach (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Don't do that, my nose hurts from the fizz of my soft drink exiting my nostrils (At least you didn't hve mold damage...)


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings



			
				beach said:
			
		

> At least you didn't hve mold damage...)


 Want a bet?


----------



## fatboy (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

you guys are baaaaad..........  :mrgreen:


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Sorry again. I just could't pass, (there I go again) it was just too easy. Sorry to conarb. Didn't mean to minimize the intent of your post. Just couldn't help myself. It comes with age. Darn, there I go again.


----------



## TJacobs (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings



			
				conarb said:
			
		

> 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.


What truth is going to come out?


----------



## beach (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Now, now.....don't encourage him!  :lol:


----------



## jpranch (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

TJ, Good question. By the time that happens we all will have solved the Great Mystery. If the fire service is so intent that they think sprinklers and sprinklers alone solves all the problems they are mistaken. See prior posts. It is a combination. Wow! A dumb butt like me coming up with that?  Not to minimise this but in the built enviroment is just a bit more complicated than just one issue. But not so much that it could not be over come by common sense.

Crap! Fell off the soapbox and turned a ankle!


----------



## conarb (Oct 29, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

As we all know the NAHB only put up token opposition, all they care about is making money, so as long as the trade-offs made them whole, they didn't give a damn.  The unintended consequences will be that many AHJs will amend the sprinklers out, the trade-offs will stay in, many of the trade-offs have to do with fire safety, both for the occupants and first responders.  With the sprinklers out there will be more injuries and deaths unless the AHJs are intelligent enough to amend the trade-offs back in when they amend the sprinklers out.   Best to just not adopt the newer code and stay with the older code without the trade-offs.  Somebody ought to catalog the trade-offs so the officials here know how to deal with amending them back in. 

My guess is, assuming new homes are actually built again, that sprinklers will be somewhat effective in states at the top of this list, but the inadvertent releases will overwhelm the damages in the states at the bottom of the list, again we now need to keep accurate statistics, and the fire service cannot be trusted to keep those statistics, witness their discontinuance of keeping inadvertent release statistics.   This should increase insurance rates in some states, and reduce them in others, casualty insurers do not insure lives, life insurers do, there are a few who insure both, notably State Farm.  One of the first things you are going to see is your simple 13D is going by the boards, already State Farm is requiring full coverage for their 10% discount, it's going to end up either full coverage or increased rates.


----------



## incognito (Oct 30, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Statistics can be manipulated to make them tell whatever story you want them to tell. Heres what I want to know from the statistics from the past and as we go forward.

1). In each of the last 20 years how many fire fatalities ocurred in single family homes? That one should be easy.

2). In a year by year analysis of the above 20 years how many deaths ocurred in each of the following: A). Homes 0-5 years old

              B). Homes 6-10 years old

              C). Homes 11-15 years old

              D). Homes 16-20 years old

              E). Homes older than 20 years old

3). What was the cause of the fire?

4). How many deaths occurred in sprinkled homes?


----------



## conarb (Oct 30, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Incognito:

We also need to know who many inadvertent releases occurred, and how many sprinklers failed to actuate in sprinkled homes in the event of fire.  The statistics need to be kept by some agency completely unrelated to the fire industry, and we need statistics showing the total cost of sprinkler systems in various areas, including meter charges. We need to compare these numbers in sprinkled areas to similarly situated homes in non-sprinkled areas.


----------



## FM William Burns (Oct 30, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

*OK FOLKS IF THIS IS GOING TO CARRY ON AS A (RFS) v. TRADE-OFFS DISCUSSION, PLEASE GO TO THE NEW THREAD ON THE TOPIC IN "RESIDENTIAL FIRE CODES" *

*THIS THREAD IS FOR COMMENTS ON THE ICC HEARINGS SO LETS STAY ON TOPIC AND NOT TURN IT INTO A (RFS) RELATED TOPIC.....THANKS!*


----------



## fatboy (Oct 30, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

It was great having lunch with you guys, have a safe journey home!


----------



## RJJ (Oct 30, 2009)

Re: IRC Hearings

Fatboy: It sure was great! Too bad we couldn't do that more often!


----------

