| NFSA IRC Update North Carolina | ||||||||||||||||
| Providing an update on adoption of the International Residential Code and the requirement of fire sprinkler adoption of dwellings. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current IRC Status Reports: Changes make-up and scope of oversight Board. In committee Bill filed that changes make-up of code adoption Board to total control by HBA - Legislature starts in May 2010. Summary of Testimony to the North Carolina Building Code CouncilThe sprinkler debate continued for almost two hours on Tuesday. The Commission put no time limits on speakers and many speakers continued on for longer than 10 minutes each (mostly the anti-sprinkler advocates). The pro-sprinkler advocates had a strong and organized presence. Indeed, almost every one of the potential speakers had an opportunity to address the Commission. The speakers did not necessarily present their testimony in a block—anti-sprinkler advocates were interspersed among pro-sprinkler advocates. There were roughly an equal number of speakers on each side.The Commissioners who spoke or asked questions constituted an equal split on the issue. Chairman Dan Tingen and Vice Chairman John Hitch appeared opposed to a sprinkler requirement, while council members Alan Perdue and Kim Reitterer spoke generally in favor of the requirement. Several other members asked technical questions but generally did not espouse particular viewpoints. The anti-sprinkler arguments focused on operational and cost issues with sprinklers—including alleged maintenance problems, dependency on ancillary pumps and tanks, tap fees, impact fees, the inability of wells to pump sufficient water, the “high” costs of the systems, and the alleged lack of consumer interest in installing sprinklers. Chairman Tingen, as described in more detail below, appeared to favor installing sprinklers by consumer “choice” rather than by a code requirement. The anti-sprinkler advocates took aim at both townhomes and single-family homes—signaling they are “going for broke” in this proceeding. The pro-sprinkler advocates, however, presented well and collectively covered a lot of ground. The room was packed with uniformed fire and police from around the state. |
||||||||||||||||