In a recent issue of the Building Safety Journal International Code Council CEO Richard Weiland talks about the fire service’s increased participation in the building-code process. I think it’s important to note that ICC recognizes this shift and its importance to the code industry.
“Earlier this year at the codes Forum in Rochester [New York], we saw first hand the passion and motivation of fire services members in the debate over residential sprinklers (RB114),” Weiland said. “The proposal to require fire sprinklers in one- and two- family homes and townhouses sparked a spirited discussion. Fire professionals voiced their opinion, and their opinion was heard and respected. While that opinion ultimately did not prevail, I think the day was a success for the fire services, and for ICC as a whole.”
I really think this is a respectful acknowledgement, and the fire service should follow this momentum toward greater influence in the provision of building safety.
Weiland, however, observed that the fire service has put less emphasis on loss prevention. “Too many fire departments continue to put prevention on the back burner, when in fact more lives are saved preventing fires then putting them out,” he said. I have to imagine — or would like to think — that the ICC is concerned about a waking giant.
There was really a small crowd of fire service people participating in the ICC Code Hearings, compared to what there could have been. Even though we in fact have fire and life-safety loss management as a back-burner function, the fire service could easily double or triple the numbers seen in Rochester. In fact, there were a number of fire service people who were in Rochester whose bosses directed them to not vote due to the tremendous political ramifications and controversy over residential sprinklers in their jurisdictions.
But it is ongoing, up-front participation in the code process that is important. The vote in Rochester was to overturn the International Residential Code Committee’s decision to not move sprinklers from the appendix to the code body. As usual the fire service was reacting to a challenge. It really is more effective to be involved on the front end through participation instead of trying to overturn a status quo action that requires a two-thirds majority. Firefighter safety in part depends on enforcement, engineering, education and all other means of thoughtful planning.
The fire service is represented on the ICC Board by two veterans: Vice President Adolph Zubia, fire chief in Las Cruces, N.M., and Barbara Koffron, fire marshal in Phoenix. These individuals represent the fire service’s interests well, but we need more participation.
As I previously wrote, fire chiefs should be joining the ICC as members, participating on ICC committees, and forming better productive and supportive relationships with their local building officials. These actions even meet the spirit of the 16 Firefighter Life-Safety Initiatives. Number 15 says “advocacy must be strengthened for the enforcement of codes and the installation of home fire sprinklers.” These efforts are inexpensive and easy for every chief to do can some day save a firefighter’s life.
October 24th, 2007 @ 8:33 am
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Love. In recent months, I have worked with the Virginia Department of Housing and Development on the adoption of the Virginia 2007 Building Code which will be based on the IBC2006. They have chosen to DELETE Section 707.14.1 which is a requirement for Enclosed Elevator Lobbies in sprinklered high rise buildings and non-sprinklered low rise buildings. This section is included in the Building Codes as an area to collect smoke during a fire evacuation to allow people more time to leave the building. It also serves to protect firefighters. So - how can you delete this from the code? Simply put, not having someone from the Fire arena there to support the opposition. We have submitted a Code Amendment that would reinstate this section but our chances for adoption seem slim for the November 5th deadline. We need the support of the Virginia Fire Chiefs.
October 26th, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
We have all heard that if you do not learn from history you are doomed to repeat it. We do that each year with the majority life loss in residential dwellings. As someone who is active in the state of Wisconsin, it is hard to hear that sprinkler protection will do away with affordable housing. With each technological add to a vehicle (in the name of safety) the cost goes up. We have not stopped buying cars or trucks. We, as consumers may grumble about the higher prices but we pay them. Words like affordable are abstract words that although have a general definition mean different things to evryone based on there situation and position in life. If the argument that sprinkler protection is only for higher end properties, is the life safety of those that cannot afford that life style worth any less? I think not. Life safety and property protection has always crossed all economic barriers and sprinkler protection is no different.
I do agree a stronger fire service presence on the code making committees is a good idea. But like all good ideas there is a catch, there needs to be openings on the committees first and there needs to be knowlegable and willing persons ready to fill the role(s). Lastly, there is the matter of money. The cost to attend the meetings. What budget will these costs be covered by? The fire service needs to establish through all its national organizations a funding mechanism to allow it’s selected representatives the oportunity to represent their interests at whatever venue is deemed necessary.
To close, the involvement of the Chiefs is important but to me the entity not mentioned but is of greatest importance is your local legislators. If enhanced life safety thresholds cannot be acheived through the code making process, it is not over. Use that same enthusiastic spirit to convince your state legislators on the importance of sprinkler protection. These are the very individuals that are charged with the responsibility of representing the interests of all the citizensin their area, not special interest. Lack of legislative action on their part to enhance the protection the citizens of their state should make each and every legislator culpable at each and every residential death. It is easier if the Model Code document has the language, but the final fight is within each state the document is adopted to maintain the language.
Respectfully submitted,
David Lind, Fire Marshal
North Shore Fire Department
665 E Brown Deer Road
Bayside, WI 53217
dlind@nsfire.org
October 28th, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Great points Dave. I concur that we need to have the right people to serve on the committees therefore we need that front end planning as well as the participation. One thing about the ICC committees is that all vacancies occur and anyone will be considered as they apply. Once appointed to the ICC committees unlike the NFPA committees your expenses are paid by ICC. There are also some NFPA committees where expenses are paid as well.
Mike