And don't wait 3 years to get started. There are supplemental editions with
a final version published every 3 years. Or at least there used to be.
Some things might have changed since I was last involved. The point is it
is sometimes easier to get something through in the supplemental. There are
usually less people involved. Any changes that get through the
supplementals automatically get include in the 3 year version provided it
makes it through the 3 yr cycle without a reversal. Then if you want it
removed you in theory have the obligation to justify removing it and perhaps
needing the 2/3 vote to get it removed. Note the voting this cycle that if
the motion was the reverse they didn't have the 2/3 to override the
committee either.
To an extent this is how the all R's in the IFC got in there in the '02ed.
I first submitted in a supplemental cycle and got it passed. Then only
needed to defend and had the 2/3's on my side. I'll admit it was a bit
surprising considering the plan was a 5-10 years to get it through, but we
passed on the first try. Others then picked up the ball on NFPA and the
IRC.
Chris Cahill, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Sentry Fire Protection, Inc.
763-658-4483
763-658-4921 fax
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mail: P.O. Box 69
Waverly, MN 55390
Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW
Waverly, MN 55390
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thom McMahon
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bid to Require Fire Sprinklers Defeated at Code Hearings
For those of you that think the time has come for this to be passed. Join
the ICC, attend the meetings and force a floor vote. There are enough
members of AFSA and NFSA to offset that 75 votes and any additional vote by
the NAHB. But it means taking the time and spending the money to make it
happen, and to make it happen you have to be there. Between the AFSA NFSA
Fire Chiefs and Fire Marshals, this could just look like a steamroller
headed down hill. Join, Participate, and achieve.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Drucker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:59 PM
Subject: RE: Bid to Require Fire Sprinklers Defeated at Code Hearings
>> From ICC ePARTNERS Volume III, Issue 5 May 2007
>
> Sprinkler Requirements Remain in IRC Appendix
>
> More than 600 proposed code changes were debated during the Final Action
> Hearings in Rochester, New York, including the proposal to include
> sprinkler
> requirements for one- and two-family dwellings in the IRC. Requirements
> for
> sprinklers to be included in the International Residential Code (IRC) will
> remain in the code's appendix. During Final Action Hearings last week in
> Rochester, New York, voting members of the Code Council voted not to
> include
> sprinkler requirements for one- and two-family dwellings in the code.
> First,
> voting members overturned a committee recommendation to deny a change that
> would have required sprinklers in all housing built under the IRC. That
> resulted in a motion to include requirements for sprinklers in the code.
> The
> vote, which needed a two-thirds majority to pass, received only 56 percent
> of the votes cast supporting the measure.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George
> Church
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:40 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Bid to Require Fire Sprinklers Defeated at Code Hearings
>
>>From Nations Building News, NAHB, Week of May 28, 2007:
>
> Bid to Require Fire Sprinklers Defeated at Code Hearings
>
> During final hearings in Rochester, N.Y. last week for proposed changes to
> the International Residential Code, affordable housing advocates pushed
> back
> an effort to include requirements for fire sprinklers.
>
> Proponents of mandating fire sprinklers for one- and two-family homes were
> unable to muster the two-thirds majority vote they needed. The May 22 vote
> was 476 to 375.
>
> Contained in the code's appendix, fire sprinkler requirements will remain
> a
> local jurisdictional choice, which is exactly as it should be according to
> representatives from NAHB state and local home builders associations who
> spoke at the code hearings.
>
> Building officials, nevertheless, are finding the arguments of
> fire-sprinkler advocates increasingly persuasive, putting the onus on home
> builders to continue to emphasize the effectiveness of the safety measures
> being incorporated into today's homes and the importance of working smoke
> alarms and fire safety education to prevent fires.
>
> In California, "more than 95% of fire fatalities were in homes built 20
> years ago. That's a tragedy," said Bob Raymer, technical director for the
> California Building Industry Association, before a packed hearing room.
> "But
> the fact is, the code changes we have made over the past 20 years are
> working," making homes safer than ever, he said.
>
> "The cost of sprinklers is $10,000 to $15,000 in my community," said a
> representative from Utah. "How many of you could afford to buy your house
> again where you live, and then add on the price of a sprinkler system? We
> need to have a balance."
>
> Lee Schwartz, executive vice president for government relations for the
> Michigan Association of Home Builders, testified that Habitat for Humanity
> officials in his state voted unanimously to oppose moving fire sprinkler
> requirements from the appendix to the main body of the code because of
> affordability and maintenance issues.
>
> "Many of our affiliates find they need to conduct several sessions of
> maintenance classes for some of our home owners to understand even basic
> home upkeep, such as changing filters on furnaces and cleaning out
> gutters,
> to say nothing of the original cost [of fire sprinklers] to the family,"
> Habitat for Humanity of Michigan President and CEO Kenneth W. Bensen said
> in
> a letter to code officials.
>
> "By raising the cost of the home and setting forth another barrier in the
> way of those in the greatest need to afford a home, this requirement would
> harm our mission of increasing the capacity to building simple, decent
> homes
> in Michigan," Bensen said.
>
> Once it was demonstrated that smoke alarm system technology worked
> reliably,
> home builder association members in his state threw their support behind
> measures to require the alarms in all existing homes, Schwartz added.
>
> Home builders and code officials opposed to mandating residential fire
> sprinklers have too many unanswered questions about their reliability,
> installation requirements, maintenance, inspection procedures and
> long-term
> functionality to be able to support them, speakers said at the hearing.
>
> Having installed fire sprinklers in a 17-home development, Don Pratt, a
> Michigan builder and code official, said that "fire suppression systems
> are
> not ready to be installed in single-family dwellings" because of the lack
> of
> appropriate technology. "I plead with you; we need more time to figure out
> the best system."
>
> Other speakers said that emphasizing safety in existing homes is what's
> needed to combat fire fatalities.
>
> "Making the house safer for middle- and upper-income people [who can
> afford
> new homes] is not going to help low-income people" in substandard housing
> or
> who don't understand the importance of working smoke alarms, said a
> Shreveport, La. building official. "We need to solve the problem where the
> fire is. We haven't had a fire death in a year and a half because we have
> a
> fire chief who supports public education" on fire safety, he said.
>
> NAHB members also emphasized that the association does not oppose fire
> sprinklers and that it has asked the International Code Council to convene
> an ad hoc committee to develop lower-cost alternatives to the systems that
> are currently available.
>
> NAHB also supports efforts to increase the effectiveness of smoke alarms.
> "We request that ICC join NAHB in a joint working group to propose
> solutions
> that both our organizations could embrace and pursue to end this needless
> loss of life, perhaps as part of the ICC Foundation efforts to promote
> building safety," said Eric S. Borsting, NAHB Construction, Codes &
> Standards Committee chair, in an April 6 letter to ICC President Wally
> Bailey.
>
> Association leaders who worked to get the home builders' pro-smoke alarm
> message heard said they were pleased with the results of the vote.
>
> "Reasonable minds have spoken," said Borsting, who attended the hearings
> in
> Rochester. "When our members talk to their local building officials, it
> becomes very clear that there are still too many unanswered questions on
> metering, plumbing, backflow - many, many issues.
>
> "The recurring theme I heard was that building officials want a choice,
> and
> keeping residential fire sprinklers optional maintains that choice,"
> Borsting said. "The hearing showed that home builders and code officials,
> working together, are a powerful voice on behalf of new home buyers, who
> overwhelmingly choose not to install fire sprinklers. We will continue to
> emphasize our message of safety and affordability and the importance of
> maintaining that balance."
>
> For more information, e-mail Calli Schmidt at NAHB, or call her at
> 800-368-5242 x8132.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sprinklerforum mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
>
> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
