Paint & Coatings Industry
  Home
  Subscribe
  eNewsletters
  Subscription Customer Service
  Online
  This Just In
  Calendar
  Webinars
  Blog
  Web Exclusives
  Current Issue
  Cover Story
  Features
  Columns
  Industry News
  Products
  Advertiser Index
  pme Profile
  Resources
  Archives
  eNewsletter Archive
  Buyers Guide
  Manufacturers Rep Directory
  Radiant Flooring Guide
  Digital Radiant Flooring Guide
  Digital Editions
  Career Center
  AEC Store
  Market Research
  Industry Links
  Showrooms
  Classified Ads
  Water Info Library
  myPlumbing Portal.com
  PME Info
  Special Collections
  History of Plumbing
  Radiant Heat Report
Search in: EditorialProductsCompanies
Heated Emotions, Mixed Results
by Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
June 1, 2009

ARTICLE TOOLS
EmailEmailPrintPrintReprintsReprintsshareShare

Various states’ legislators have taken sides in the debate over the IRC mandatory residential sprinkler requirement. Two states have my support, but one definitely doesn’t.


Thank You, New Jersey and Pennsylvania

The state of New Jersey became the first state to vote in support of adopting the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) with mandatory residential sprinkler requirements. The vote was by the State of New Jersey Uniform Construction Code Advisory Board (CAB).

CAB made one slight modification to the sprinkler requirements. Rather than an effective date of Jan. 1, 2011, they pushed it back a year to Jan. 1, 2012. This was done at the request of the homebuilders because of the difficult economic times.

It was interesting to note that the vote to adopt the 2009 IRC was unanimous. CAB includes representatives from the homebuilders. Unlike certain other states, the homebuilders in New Jersey have understood the importance of residential sprinklers. That doesn’t mean they unanimously support the mandating of sprinklers. But they do understand the trend to go in that direction.

The vote by CAB is a very important step in the adoption process. Once CAB makes a recommendation, it is passed forward to the Department of Community Affairs Commissioner and the legal department. Once the Commissioner and legal department sign off on the recommendation, it then moves forward to the Governor’s office. After the Governor signs off on the proposal, it is published in the New Jersey Register.

When I asked about the actual adoption date of the 2009 IRC, I was informed that the state intends to have the code adopted before the end of 2009. Thus, the 2009 edition of the code would become law within 2009. That is quite an accomplishment for a state adoption!

A week after the state of New Jersey recommended adoption of the 2009 IRC, the state of Pennsylvania had a similar recommendation from their code review committee. They recommended adoption of the 2009 IRC without amendments — meaning that the sprinkler mandate for one- and two-family dwellings would be Jan. 1, 2011.

Both states are to be congratulated for a job well done.

Following the decision by NJ CAB, one of the Assemblywomen posted a ridiculous comment on her Web site regarding the vote. Her statement was, “There is a limit as to how far government should interject itself into areas that should be decided by the consumer. The housing industry is mired in a slump not seen in generations and shows little sign of improvement. For prospective buyers, adding $10,000 to the cost of a new house can make the difference in whether or not they make the purchase.”

I realize that she is a politician and politicians are supposed to make absurd comments. So I wondered what district this Assemblywoman represented. As it turns out, she represents my mother’s and brother’s district.

Let me tell you a little about Bergen County, where I grew up. It is not what you would consider a poor county. At one time, it was considered the third richest county in the country. A three-bedroom shack built in the 1920s recently sold for more than a half-million dollars.

It is understandable that a residential sprinkler system in Bergen County could add $10,000 to the cost of construction of a new home. They build nothing but McMansions in her district, and the construction costs in Bergen County are higher than many other parts of the country. But that won’t be reflected in the cost of the home because new homes in Bergen County sell for whatever the market will bear. Plus, everyone knows that a sprinklered new home is more desirable than an existing, non-sprinklered home. Hence, sprinklers are actually a great marketing tool to stimulate the new housing market over the existing housing market.


Boycott North Dakota

Living a mile from the Illinois border (in Indiana), I got to witness on a daily basis the trials and tribulations of the Governor Blago fiasco. What former Governor Rod Blagojevich proved to the world is that politicians really are for sale. Did we ever doubt that?

Most of us were raised to have faith in our elected officials. I still do. But I get very disappointed that money so easily can buy a vote. Okay, we can’t call it money; we call it “campaign contributions.” No matter what you call it, politicians have been bought and sold since the beginning of our country. Our only recourse is to vote them out of office.

Perhaps the citizens of North Dakota will vote their politicians out of office the next election. The North Dakota politicians proved how little it costs to be bought and sold by the homebuilders. This was done at the sacrifice of the citizens of the state.

This past April, the Governor of North Dakota signed into law a bill that prohibits any jurisdiction from adopting a code that mandates residential sprinklers in one- or two-family dwellings. The National Association of Home Builders touted this as a major victory for the homebuilders. But I saw it as a disgusting display of buying politicians.

A week after the bill was signed into law, two people died in home fires in North Dakota.

This reminded me of classes that I took when I was studying to be an officer in the military. One of the classes dealt with acceptable levels of casualties on the battlefield. Part of your assignment was to design an offensive attack in which you listed the potential casualties.

This was a tough assignment. I remember my plan: I listed zero casualties. It wasn’t the most aggressive plan, but I would have spared the lives of all of my soldiers. I was the only one who received an “A” for that assignment. That lesson has stuck with me for a long time. As the Colonel who was teaching the course stated, “You don’t play with peoples’ lives. You do everything possible to save them.”

In North Dakota, the politicians should have taken this class. How many lives is a campaign contribution worth? How many dollars can a politician raise for each citizen that would die in a fire, or be permanently scarred?

So I have decided to boycott North Dakota. I would rather spend my money in New Jersey or Pennsylvania, which I have done since they passed recommendations to adopt the 2009 International Residential Code with mandatory sprinkler requirements. As for North Dakota, I’m not spending a dime. I hope you join me in boycotting the state. If you live in the state, it is time to throw the bums out.


Julius Ballanco, P.E., CPD
jbengineer@aol.com
Julius Ballanco, P.E., is Editorial Director of PM Engineer and president of J.B. Engineering and Code Consulting, P.C. in Munster, IN. Prior to starting J.B. Engineering, he served as head of plumbing and mechanical engineering for Building Officials and Code Administrators International, one of the organizations that formed the International Code Council (ICC). His engineering consulting work includes the design of plumbing, mechanical and fire-protection systems; forensic engineering; training; and serving numerous manufacturers in different capacities. In addition, Ballanco is the current president of ASPE and a member of both ICC and IAPMO. He can be reached by e-mail at jbengineer@aol.com.

|PrintEmail
  Comments (12)Post a Comment
Title: For Sale


Yes, politicians are for sale. Just as you are. I have been following your support for code issues and you always side with the company that pays you! Yes, there is a paper trail that is easy to follow. You might want to consider a carrer in politics beacuse it seems that being underhanded and deceptive while taking money to represent someone for their own advantade in the code body is right up your alley. So.... what are your real intentions here other than whining as usual because you didn't get your way. You are just like a little kid. One more thing, who are you representing that wants the sprinklers passed into code? I think everyone has a right to know what you are doing here.


Title: House Fires


I would like to know the percentage of homes that burn that are up to current code. I have found that a majority of residential fires occur in older homes that are not up to current code. How would installing sprinklers in new construction solve any of these problems? It wouldn't, but Billanco is just pushing this issue because of the money he is being paid. How much was it this time Julius? The devil called with an offer $50.00 for the small fraction of a soul you might have left. Sellouts have no business in code bodies. Try politics, it suits your bribe taking better.


Title: Question


A week after the bill was signed into law, two people died in home fires in North Dakota.

When was the home built?


Title: A Response


Chris and Curtis,

Ouch, if you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger. Your comments are similar to watching the Democrats and Republicans - slash and burn, poison pen, and character assassination. That’s okay, I am a big boy, and I can take it. Apparently, neither one of you read my book. If you had, you would realize that I have been speaking and writing about the mandate of residential sprinklers for my entire professional life. Why not, it makes perfect sense. Having been a volunteer fireman and volunteer ambulance corp member, I have had to face death. I don’t like it. As an engineer, it is my responsibility to make sure that avoidable deaths be avoided. Residential sprinklers are an easy answer.

You should talk to a family member who has lost a loved one in a fire. I have. It tears your heart out. I was crying while talking to the mother who lost her daughter in the beachfront home in South Carolina with her fellow classmates. By the way, it was a new, very expensive home on the beach that completely complied with code. She told me that the flowers for her daughters funeral cost more than it would have to sprinkler that beachfront home.

What you seem to forget, is that the contents of a home burn. Hence, it doesn’t matter what the age. Of course, you could buy into the homebuilders’ rhetoric and say that people only die in older homes. However, that simply isn’t true. People die in homes of any age.

To answer your question, BNP pays me as a columnist. They can’t buy my opinion, that’s not for sale. It never has been. Ask any of my colleagues.


Title: water damage


Has anyone considered the amount of damage that this live saving system could cause when it sets off on a small kitchen fire that could have been extinguished with a typical extinguisher? Where you may have simply been able to clean up the smoke damage and air the place out you now have water damage in the area of the fire, possible damage to the floor system and possible damage to a finished space below... in addition to the cost to reset the sprinkler system.


Title: "Only older homes burn"


Curtis and Chris, you generalize that only older homes burn; well, wait a few years until a house that's new today and would have had sprinklers if they had been mandated, burns and you can still say, "Well, it was an older home". And Jamie, with so much of the population getting older, the chances of kitchen fires will undoubtedly increase. My logic? Also a generalization, I admit, but one that will probably bear fruit: older people tend to be more forgetful (I know, I am one!)- how many times has someone put a pot on the stove, walked away and forgotten it? We're not talking "small kitchen fire" any more. Remember, it takes a certain amount of heat to set off a sprinkler head; if the fire is small enough and you're lucky enough to be there, you wouldn't have the sprinkler going off at all. I'm pretty sure insurance companies (and the families affected) would rather have the smaller cost of water damage than that of replacing a whole house ravaged by fire. And of course, no one can replace the lives lost in home fires.


Title: getting out of hand


There is no question that residential sprinklers will save lives. Having said this, I must disagree with Julius and lots of other folks out there. Affordibility is one of the so called purposes of the building codes, as stated in R101.3, along with all of the other stated reasons. With all of the increasing costs involved with building or purchasing a home, this particular mandate does nothing to ensure or promote the stated pupose of the codes. You will then ask at what cost is losing even one life? Agreed you can not put a price on the life of a loved one! How can we then protect every aspect of your life or even the hint of an unsafe situation or occurance without regard to your welfare or personal choice? It seems we as code developers are taking upon ourselves the task of protecting every citizen whether or not they want to be protected. The notion that the building codes are to provide a minimum standard of living or saftey for everyone is at least laughable. Our great nation is the only one around that could possibly live up these "minimum standards". Pretty soon you, I,and our children will have to go somewhere else to be able to afford to live!
P.S. Everyone seems to have a price at which they can be "persuaded" some just show it a little bit more than others.


Title: Fire Protection


Why not treat the entire structure of the house with a spray applied fire retardant. It is better to keep a fire from starting in the first place is it not? And it cost's less money and the homeowner can receive a 15% discount on his insurance.


Title: water damage


Jamie has not had any experience with detection and suppression system or she would know that sprinklers are not controlled by smoke dectoion but by the heat of a fire


Title: Question


Julius,

Why did you not answer any of the questions that were asked by Chris and Curtis in your response. It seems that you just repeated your arguments and danced around the actual issue. It must be hard to give an informed answer backed up by any actual hard evidence. I look forward to your response.


Title: Residential Fire Sprinklers


Perhaps Jules would like to slander Texas and Long Beach CA now that they have justifiably rejected the residential sprinkler mandate. And he might as well oil up his typewriter as Idaho and other states are about to join them. I would like to ask Jules to answer a question. How many residential deaths from fire or smoke have occurred since the NEC required hard wired smoke detectors? The fire departments often state that they don't know if the smoke/fire alarm was functioning due to the old battery question, with the new smoke detectors that shouldn't be a factor. Also, what percentage of fire related deaths involve drugs or alchohol? And would sprinklers have made a difference? In my opinion the heavily lobbied requirement for sprinklers is a suspender on top of a belt on top of an elastic waistband waste of homeowner capital. The money could be better spent on insulation, better windows, or higher efficiency HVAC equipment.


Title: RE:


"By: Glenn Elwell, P.E.
Posted: July 22, 2009 1:47 PM
Perhaps Jules would like to slander Texas and Long Beach CA now that they have justifiably rejected the residential sprinkler mandate."

Looks like he did (page 6):
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/bnp/pme_200907/index.php?startid=10#/8


 
 


Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to the magazine.





BNP Media
Your Feedback