# SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS



## forensics (Nov 28, 2009)

Well Guys next up is the SC Building Codes Council and the 2009 IRC

I though I would post my letter in support of adoption

So go ahead

*FEEDING FRENZY* 

*November 22, 2009*

*The South Carolina Building Codes Council *

*PO Box 11329 *

*Columbia, SC 29211-1329*

*RE:   2009 IRC Code Hearing*

*Honorable Building Code Council Members,*

*Please accept these comments in relation to the adoption of the 2009 IRC Code for South Carolina.*

*In that the code officials have seen it fit to include residential fire sprinklers in the body of the 2009 IRC Code because of their undisputed reliability and effectiveness, I heartily endorse the inclusion of those provisions in South Carolina and also the adoption of the 2009 IRC code in it entirety.*

*There are forces at work that would have you to believe that there are equally effective alternatives to these low cost systems but that just is not true. Residential sprinklers provide active defense against loss of life in fires and that distinction sets them apart from any alarm or detection devices.*

*The fact remains that both alarms and sprinklers save lives and together the two systems dramatically increase your family’s chances of survivability.*

*It will only be a matter of time until a legal challenge will be instituted as a result of the untimely death of a citizen because we chose to disregard the recommendations of all three model building codes. *

*Our integrity is sure to be called into question as the code approval and enforcement authority having jurisdiction for willful disregard of the code recommendations.*

*The proven technology that allows the sprinkler systems to be easily integrated into the home plumbing systems has reduced the cost to as low as two dollars per square foot or less of the heated space in a new home. *

*While residential sprinklers may well be a good investment at the five to seven dollar cost that has been quoted by the homebuilders and sprinkler opponents, the failure to include them at a cost of less than two dollars is nothing short of foolhardy and could even be considered to be reckless. *

*Common sense demands the inclusion of these lifesaving systems purely from a life safety standpoint, but when one considers the insurance savings alone the inclusion of the sprinklers is a “no brainer.”*

*The fire sprinklers do not increase the overall cost of a home when one considers the tax base impact of providing these homes with fire protection. After all it is the homeowners who bear the cost of the infrastructure in their tax bills.*

*Residential fire sprinklers are a superior technology to fire stations and apparatus and they will provide a safer home than we could ever accomplish through the current methods. *

*One must consider the total number of homes that could be sprinkled for the ten plus million dollars that must be expended to construct just one fire station and that cost does not even consider the operating cost for that fire station, training, personnel, and equipment.*

*Such arguments as lack of adequate water supply, cost burden, inability of the plumbers to accomplish the work, non-combustible construction materials and methods and every other argument we have heard are unfounded and some border on the ridiculous. *

*I beg of you to do the research necessary to confirm the effectiveness of these life saving systems.*

*The inclusion of residential sprinklers in the 2009 code not only help overcome the eminent risk and danger of firefighting operations in lightweight construction framing, but they also force the large scale residential developments from reaping their profits and leaving the problem of protecting the residents of their developments to the tax payers.*

*All too often they then pack up and leave town to go elsewhere to develop even more unprotected neighborhoods. This code requirement forces them to accept responsibility for fire protection in their developments.*

*At the end of the day the residential fire sprinklers will serve to save lives and drastically reduce fire related property losses in South Carolina and they will do so for far less cost. *

*Their adoption will be no less effective in South Carolina than they are in such places as Scottsdale Az., Prince George County, Md. or the other four hundred communities that currently mandate the systems and prove their effectiveness.*

*There are absolutely no reasonable arguments to defer or omit the inclusion of residential fire sprinklers except to slightly reduce the cost of a new home temporarily at the cost of lives of South Carolina citizens. *

*The citizenry deserves better and we must not be deterred by the few who would choose to play politics with our very lives in order to increase their market share and profitability.*

*Thank you for your faithful diligence and service to the people of our great state.*

*FORENSICS*


----------



## fatboy (Nov 28, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

I wish you well, as it stands right now, I am the only AHJ along the Front Range of Northern CO that is adopting the 09, unamended in relation to the RFS provisions. After finding this out, I had thoughts of following the others, postponing the requirement,  but we have decided that we will embrace the inevitable, and move forward. As it stands right now, our Urban Renewable Authority will be including a 09 IRC compliant sprinkler system in their next new low income housing project, prior to the IRC requirement date of 1/1/2011. We hope to use this as an educational experience for all.


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 29, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

*Forensics:*

Nice support and I too wish your state well  

*Fatboy:*

Amen and great for your community!  I hope our state will come around before 2015 since they amended the sprinklers and didn't bring back the other items voted out (real losers...all of us).  I have begun at square one once again and have created a program to educate the building trades next generation, so far well received.  Hopefully our Code Commission and Legislators will someday follow.


----------



## forensics (Nov 29, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

FM

we are developing a 2hr ceu course for plan review and also a 2 hr ceu for field inspection for P2904 systems as well as NFPA 13D systems

Our hope is that SC will adopt the code courses to equip the fire dept inspectors and plumbing inspectors to qualify to inspect the P-2904 multipurpose systems

Yall pray for us to prevail in the code hearings

As we often say "Jesus came that we might have life and life everlasting" No matter what people say we are on a devine mission!

This effort will save the children!

Forensics


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

Forensics:  I hear you and its nice seeing smart proactive direction in action.  It’s really a shame that our state seems to be a reactionary one and I keep doing my part to change that.  We have been invited to the table finally and hopefully we can begin a dialog with the code commission bureaucrats to become more proactive and achieve similar initiatives like being done down there and other states.

When boiled down to simplistic form, it’s really not that difficult and can be accomplished if some are willing to expand their narrow vision.  Keep us posted!


----------



## Paul Sweet (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

I think a companion law is needed to prevent localities from hitting sprinklered homes with higher water & sewer tap fees and monthly charges if they need a larger meter because of low water pressure.


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

Big time agreement with that Paul!


----------



## forensics (Nov 30, 2009)

Re: SC Building Codes Council Set To Debate RFS

You are spot on Paul!

Here in SC we got a bill passed a couple of sessions ago that restricts water purveyors from making any profit or fees from sprinkler tap, impact or recurring monthly charges.  

It is very interesting to note that most water purveyors install 5/8 inch meters with 3/4 nipples even though they call it a 3/4 service. When we challenged the local water dept because the minimum water service required a full size 3/4 meter they caved because they were concerned about being exposed for providing a 5/8 meter instead of 3/4 meter and they were open to a class action suit for misrepresenting the water services as 3/4 inch to the consumers.

In addition they were astonished when we told them that all 5/8 inch meters would soon be obsolete due to the IRC adoption of sprinklers. I have to wonder how many 5/8 meters will end up in the scrap metal bin due to the sprinkler issue.


----------

