I was all excited about Pennsylvania. Too bad. But in Washington: We adopted the IRC with the two sprinkler paragraphs relegated back to the appendix but with the caveat that individual jurisdictions could adopt the IRC with the paragraphs in the body, and, and this is Big Thing number One, without the former requirement to demonstrate need to the NAHB dominated State Building Codes Council. Recently the Washington State Rating Bureau (the guys who determine insurance rating status) ruled that not following an adopted code in full would be considered cause to reduce a municipality's insurance rating. This is Big Thing number Two and means that, say Seattle or Bellevue, could lose a Triple A rating thus costing the taxpayers money for increased insurance rates. As we all know, despite the NAHB/BIA rhetoric, housing prices are market based, not cost based, and so now in Washington protecting contractor's profits is not a question of mere life safety but an actual dollar cost to all the citizenry. We'll see how this plays out.
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Jay Stough <[email protected]> wrote: > George, I think we are very close to going back to the equivalent of the > 1929 > Fire & Panic Act! Just think 7 months ago we were leading the nation! > > > Jay Stough > > > > > ________________________________ > From: George Church <[email protected]> > To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, June 23, 2011 4:49:08 PM > Subject: RE: Building trade off update > > There's debate here in PA now about partial 13D systems to protect only the > basement to avoid the drywall requirements of the 2012 IRC that must be met > for > LW construction in basements. > Someone (a builder) asked if installing insulation above the bottom chord > of the > TJI was "equivalent" to drywall below- a really scary thought that someone > would > bother to ask such a thing. > > Neither 13D nor P2904 have wording for limited area systems, so we end up > in the > code being written as a whole, then piecemealed by legislators and > administrators, then misinterpreted by builders who tend to be a little > anti-sprinkler in these parts lately. > > Even if it is determined that a basement only system is acceptable, it > certainly > isn't anything Rowe Sprinkler is going to install. > I call them "Maytag" systems. So the builder can use TJI's without drywall, > we'd > install sprinklers in the basement protecting the washer/dryer, leaving the > residents upstairs to die in a fire? > Sounds like work I don't mind giving up to the plumbers who don't > understand > liability issues. > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2011 1:13 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Building trade off update > > Yep....Thanks for the reminder but this one is documented to the hilt. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George > Church > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 10:20 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Building trade off update > > Only one question- was the mtg documented so you have a copy to take to > court in > 2014? > > > George L. Church, Jr., CET > Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. > PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 > 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Rod DiBona > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11:05 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Building trade off update > > > I wanted to follow up and let everyone who helped me think through the > process > know what happened. This was a new two story courthouse (A3) with a > combustible > attic above the 2nd floor and a single (B) occupancy attached adjacent on > the > ground floor. IBC 2009. He was sprinklering the basement, 1st and 2nd but > not > the attic. We met with the Architect and and asked him if he could educate > us on > his decision tree that allowed: > > > 1. No sprinklers in the combustible attic that was draft stopped every > 3,000 > ft. > 2. Install fire protection on the first and second floors (not required > systems in the A3) to allow a reduction in fire rating of the corridor > walls, > stairs, and the wall separating the courtroom A3 from the B occupancy. > 3. His logic for not mandating an increase of the design area on the 2nd > floor > to 3,000 ft. > > His answers were: > > > 1. The IBC 2009 doesn't require sprinklers except for the basement, so > NFPA 13 > isn't applicable. > 2. He stated that the IBC allows for reduction with partial systems. 901.2 > "exception" > 3. He believed that because partial systems are allowed and that because > the > code didn't require a system in the attic that we wouldn't need to increase > our > area on the 2nd floor even though the combustible attic above was > unsprinklered. > > We took the advice of GC / Roland and others and listened and accepted what > he > said. The tone of the meeting was very good and at the end of the day I am > glad > he chose more sprinklers than required in lieu of more rating. I personally > don't agree with the lack of increase in area ( question #3) but as it has > been > pointed out...... not my decision. > > Thanks for all the input and help. We learn and move on. > > > Rod DiBona > Rapid Fire Protection > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College 1101 So. Yakima Ave. Tacoma, WA 98405 [email protected] http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ 253.680.7346 253.576.9700 (cell) Member: ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
