If you’re not familiar with the process of making changes to the codes this is a very informative article. I found it interesting that half the seats on the IRC Code Development committee are appointees of the NAHB. A couple of other interesting snippits;
The first meeting in the 18-month period was in Orlando, Fla., where the Code Development Committee considered the sprinkler proposal and recommended disapproval. The committee disapproved this proposed change to require approved automatic sprinkler systems for several reasons, it said in its published comments.
‘The issue of cold weather and freezing of the systems was a concern,’ the committee said. ‘The cost of labor to install and then maintain the system was a concern. Increase of cost and demands on local infrastructure as well. Appendix P [which references fire sprinklers as an option] is an option that is available for anyone that wishes to adopt and enforce that appendix. Any code change to bring sprinklers into the code text needs to have a provision to delete Appendix P and this proposal did not.'”
All of the above arguments seem like they can be dispelled with education and training.
The following paragraph is information that I have been trying to figure out a way to track. I would like to hear feedback from architects and builders in areas were residential sprinklers are required to find out how things are going.
One-on-one with the builders who have requested materials through our Website, they tell us, ‘I know it’s coming so I better learn about it,'” Paul said. ‘Every year more builders and architects are asking for our material. Over the last few years, I’ve had a chance to work with a number of builders around the country, like in Maryland where they have lot of sprinkler requirements, and they don’t have an issue with it at all. In Chicago, 43 communities require sprinklers in all new homes and we’re not hearing that the homes won’t sell because of cost.'”
Good Stuff. [contractormag.com]