WABO Residential Sprinkler Survey March 15, 2012

Transcription

1 WABO Residential Sprinkler Survey March 15, 2012 Submit Date As Is to IRC Comment 3/13/ :54 I am a strong supporter of local control where the citizens have a voice through the elected officials as to the communities needs and/or desires. 3/13/ :25 3/13/ :27 3/13/ :28 3/13/ :28 ing the decision at the local level invites politics to effect safety. The Master Builders will forever lobby the electeds against anything that affects their bottom line. If Fire sprinklers are ever expected to be placed in single family homes, it can only be done effectively at the state level. 3/13/ :29 Now, with the state of the economy, is not the time to create additional requirements which increase the cost of housing. 3/13/ :30 3/13/ :31 3/13/ :31 3/13/ :32 3/13/ :32 3/13/ :33 3/13/ :34 3/13/ :35 3/13/ :37 3/13/ :37 3/13/ :38 3/13/ :39 3/13/ :40 3/13/ :40 3/13/ :41 3/13/ :42 3/13/ :42 There is no need for sprinklers in sigle family homes they have a very good safety record and the economy is to weak to increase costs. My City Council likes local control and does not see a need to sprinkler everything. Structures with fire flow problems per Appendix B of the IFC and Townhouses of three units or more because they resemble a triplex are in our Ordinance now. I find it laughable in this state that we would even consider raising the standard for new constructed single family dwellings while cities and counties are preempted from prohibiting R.V.s from being used a permanent dwellings. There are too many variables from jurisdition to jurisdition and having in the appendix allows each governing body to make the decision that works for their situa on.,,my editorial comment is:,once we pass a universal health care program that protects all people we will have determined that human life is valuable enough to save. At that point mandating fire sprinklers to save lives could be supported.,,as always,,from the le,leonard The economic climate remains difficult and sprinklers add cost. Additionally, in our jurisdiction, there are other agencies, such as water districts that drive addi onal installa on and fee requirements.,,sprinklers are s ll a good idea and will sometime in the future become mandatory, but for now leaving sprinkler requirements in the appendixes is right for our jurisdiction.

2 3/13/ :43 3/13/ :43 3/13/ :43 3/13/ :44 3/13/ :46 3/13/ :48 3/13/ :50 3/13/ :52 3/13/ :53 3/13/ :54 3/13/ :54 3/13/ :55 3/13/ :56 3/13/ :58 3/13/ :58 3/13/ :03 3/13/ :03 3/13/ :05 3/13/ :06 Why would we want to mandate this issue? It is a failed idea, there is no maintenance requirements and who will monitor the systems once they are in? This is an idea that should not be forced upon anyone. It would take over 100 years for this sprinkler idea to impact the housing stock in any way, why penalize those who want to build in the mean time for something that will not impact our built environment for years. It works, so why change it? If the reason for mandating sprinklers is important for a community due to any number of circumstances, then let their governing powers decide what is best for them and their situation.the State and the FS Coalition should not be in that business. Single family detached structures should not have mandatory fire suppression systems requirements. If the contractor/homeowner want to install a residential sprinkler system, they have that option. I am concerned about the lack of fire flow in our area, specifically areas on the Olympic Peninsula. In some areas, requiring a fire sprinkler system, would put additional burdens on the contractor/homeowner, i.e. low producing wells which would require holding tanks for the sprinler system. Also lack of maintenance of the sprinkler system is/would be an issue. The City of Everett supports the notion that each jurisditction have the ability to choose whether or not to impose this requirement. We do not support that residential sprinklers be made manditory in a code that is based on minimum fire and life safety standards.,,thank you,tony Lee,Building Official the code flexible enough so it can adapt to many different circumstances., This has also been discussed in Oregon with OBOA. Based on the fact that most fires occur in SFR as well as most deaths, I would recommend it be mandatory. Take a ride with a first responder and talk with them. I do think that residential sprinkler systems should be mandatory for new homes in rural area's. But I think it would be wrong to force places with full time fire departments to require them.

3 3/13/ :09 3/13/ :13 3/13/ :15 3/13/ :16 3/13/ :16 3/13/ :17 3/13/ :17 3/13/ :17 Currently, my jurisdiction does not have control of the supplying water system which makes it difficult to implement the needed adjustments in the supply equipment allowing sprinkler systems to be fully effec ve.,,our city council at some point will be the determining factor in whether sprinklers become mandatory or until the state mandates them. I discussed this with our local fire district recently. He suggested less expensive ways of providing the benefits of residential sprinklers without going to the expense of a sprinkler system. I think it is best to keep these decisions local. Our answer is based on if there are no reductions to current fire protection precautions (fireblocking, garage separation, ECT) to future IRC minimums. Giving away protection based on sprinkler is not acceptable in our opinion. I rural location water pressure and water availability is always an issue. Often homes are using private wells for their water source and I'm concerned they could not meet the flow or pressure requirements for a residential sprinkler system. I believe that fire sprinklers in a residential application are unnecessary. An approved smoke detection system can alert the residence of a home way before sprinkler flow would and it is less expensive in comparison to a fire sprinkler systems. 3/13/ :18 3/13/ :19 3/13/ :19 Let local jurisdictions make there own decision. 3/13/ :20 3/13/ :23 3/13/ :24 3/13/ :25 3/13/ :27 This is an issue whose time has not come. 3/13/ :34 3/13/ :37 3/13/ :37 3/13/ :38 This item should remain in the Appendixes and let local jurisdictions adopt or not depending on local water systems demands. We believe that moving this item into the mandated body of the code would impact local jurisdictions, builders and home buyers at a time when all parties are suffering from funding issues. FYI The City of Kenmore, Washington adopted Appendix S through local Ordinance, with the input from the Master Builders Association and other Stakeholders. The number one concern during these meetings and discussions was cost. Cost should not play such a leading role in an important life safety subject as this, however it does.,in the City of Kenmore, some of the costs were mitigated through; 1. The reduction of fire districts benefit charge; 2. The reduction of the water districts facility charge; and 3. The actual costs are much lower than originally an cipated.,

4 3/13/ :48 3/13/ :58 3/13/ :00 3/13/ :02 3/13/ :04 3/13/ :06 3/13/ :08 3/13/ :13 3/13/ :18 What is the purpose of this rule? Is it to have less fire fighters on staff, and or to eliminate the need for local fire protection all together, or to keep all fire protection and sprinklers and add more costs to home buyers? I strongly believe residential fire sprinkler systems should be a local decision based on local factors, therefore believe it being "pre approved" as an adoptable appendix is the most appropriate. Small municipalities cannot afford to monitor the annual certifications of the anti backflow devises that would be required to protect the potable water supply in the house. We are over regulated as it is now, enough already!,, 3/13/ :19 3/13/ :32 3/13/ :32 I strongly support WABO's current position 3/13/ :45 3/13/ :51 3/13/ :52 3/13/ :56 3/13/ :12 3/13/ :30 3/13/ :30 3/13/ :43 3/13/ :50 3/13/ :54 3/13/ :01 3/13/ :01 3/13/ :02 3/13/ :27 3/13/ :42 3/13/ :52 3/13/ :01 3/13/ :03 3/13/ :03 3/13/ :06 3/13/ :08 3/13/ :23 3/14/2012 7:13 3/14/2012 7:53 3/14/2012 8:36 3/14/2012 8:41 My experience has been that many Jurisdictions have unique conditions or lack there of, which would dictate that they retain authority over regulating residen al sprinkler system requirements.,,the decision should be le to the Authority Having Jurisdiction

5 3/14/2012 8:56 3/14/2012 9:01 3/14/2012 9:10 3/14/2012 9:38 3/14/ :19 3/14/ :47 3/14/ :09 Moving this proposal into the body of the IRC with the current economic conditions, would jeopardize the already struggling new housing market. provided residential sprinkler (NFPA 13 D) systems are allowed to be installed, modified and maintained by licensed plumbing contractors. Our jurisdiction is rural and served by private wells, many of which cannot provide the water required for sprinklers. Until it is manditory by the State, I have no Council support for moving this item 3/14/ :24 forward. Another approach would be to move the appendixes to the IRC as optional 3/14/ :30 appendixes. I believe the residential sprinkler system requirement should remain optional due to the unresolved liability issues related to the municipal water supply. E.g. A fire that might have been extinguished by a required sprinkler system damages a home or injures the occupants when the jusrisdiction has turned off 3/14/ :02 the water supply for non payment of utility bills. This needs to be done at the state building code level instead of jurisdiction by 3/14/ :46 jurisdiction. 3/14/ :53 Jurisdictional control is necessary to address each areas differences. 3/15/2012 0:04 3/15/2012 9:25 3/15/ :19 3/15/ :00 3/15/ :09 In our area most homes are low income and are on low yield individual water systems. Not sure how that could work? Severe winter conditions with scattered site homes subject to winter power outages. Not sure how that would work?