ࡱ> SUR'` ,bjbj{P{P 4>::$@@@@T,-^r-t-t-t-t-t-t-$Q/h1---JJJ r-Jr-JJ +, S@+r--0-+Q2Q2(,Q2,VJtZ--@ - \\ MINUTES FROM THE 3rd SPRINKLER TAG 3/29/2010 Scarborough Town Office Conference Room 6:30 p.m. Meeting opened at 6:30 p.m. Introductions were done. TAG members present: Peter Cutrer, David Jackson, Jeff Twitchell, Eric Ellis, Carl Chretien, Lee DeVito, W. Mark Cummings, Gerald Leach, Tim Travers, Barbara Berry and Andrew Grant Guests included: Brian Finn, Chief Michael Thurlow, Chief Pat Fairbanks, Chief Bob Lefebvre and Jon Michelson. (Chiefs Lefebvre and Fairbanks joined the TAG after this meeting) Building Codes Board TAG members not required to attend this meeting. DPS Staff present: Dir. Dick Dolby and Kathy Chamberlain Dick Dolby passed out a Summary of what was discussed at the last TAG meeting which listed the areas of compromise that were reached or at least were middle ground discussions. He advised that perhaps the towns that have already put sprinklers in place as a land use or Fire/Life Safety Code might possibly be able to keep it, as its not part of the Building Codes for that town. SUMMARY The Sprinkler TAG has met several times in southern fb88 to discuss relevant issues. The TAG members reviewed the status of the NFPA 101 adopted by the Department of Public Safety, Office of State Fire Marshal. While the present edition of the NFPA 101, as written, does contain a provision requiring sprinkler protection in one and two-family dwellings, in the adoption of the code the specific provision requiring sprinkler protection in one and two-family dwellings were not adopted. The TAG members reviewed the status of the International Residential Code, 2009 edition, under consideration for adoption as a portion of the fb88 Uniform Building and Energy Code, and found the code does contain the specific provision requiring sprinkler protection in one and two-family dwellings. Therefore the TAG found there is a conflict between the present regulations as proposed for adoption as a portion of the fb88 Uniform Building and Energy Code. This recognition permitted the TAG to move forward with discussions aimed at resolution of the two opposing code provisions, if possible. The TAG members identified a number of pros and cons that effected the discussion. While our original discussions were significantly polarized at first, the TAG members did make significant progress in identifying areas where a majority of the TAG members were able to achieve limited agreement. -2- The group agreed that configurations identified as town houses should be subject to application of the adopted code provisions immediately. The group generally agreed that a mandatory sprinkler provisions should be implemented in a phased time period of two (2) years. The group generally agreed that the sprinkler provisions permitted by the IRC, notable NFPA 13D should not be permitted to be altered by individual communities. The group generally agreed that a threshold size of the one and two-family dwelling should be established, below which the sprinkler provisions would not be required. The size should be strictly living area only, changes or modifications in the future would have the effect of nullifying the exception. Additionally, the addition of exterior porches or decks would not have the effect of increasing the size as long as they are open, specifically not enclosed to retain heat or smoke products. The threshold size was not firmly established but ranged from: Year 1 3,500 sq. ft. to Year 2 3,000 3,000 sq. ft. to 2,500 2,500 sq. ft. to 2,000 2,000 sq. ft. to 1,500 The group generally agreed that one and two-family dwellings below the threshold size should provide an increased level of protection when taking advantage of light-weight construction features. Specifically, basements with light-weight framing should be provided with a sheetrock ceiling system, equivalent to the construction methods employed in the remainder of the dwelling. As an alternative to the sheetrock ceiling sprinkler protection off the domestic water service was considered acceptable. The Board Members present at the TAG meetings appreciated the spirit of cooperation expressed by all the members of the TAG to openly discuss the pros and cons in a meaningful dialogue. It is my understanding the Board Members on the Sprinkler TAG will share their thoughts with the entire Technical Advisory Board and request the matter be voted on. Peter Cutrer, Sanford Fire Marshal wrote to Bruce Johnson at ICC and asked the following questions of Bruce Was the 2009 IRC written with the presumption of sprinklers being put in? Yes and it will remain in the 2012 code as well. 2. What, if any concessions favor new construction? 3. What benefits can be seen in installing these systems? ISO is very interested in what fb88 does with the MUBEC adoption. The State Fire Marshals Office (FMO) has 13 insurance companies listed that give reductions in homeowners insurance if they have a sprinkler in them. Chief Lefebvre advised that NFPA 1 requires under water supply for construction either temporary or permanent must be made available as soon as combustible materials are present on the building site. -3- Discussion on Summary handed out would we exempt a garage if no one is living above it? The first floor being unlimited square feet? Barb Berry wanted to reiterate her survey results as reported at the last meeting. The fb88 Realtors Association will fight it if sprinklers are made mandatory. Eric Ellis, FMO, suggested that perhaps a house could be sprayed with non fire retardant materials as an option to having a sprinkler. Gerald Leach advised that $2000 - $2500 can install a system for a 1,000 sq ft home. Many smaller homes are built here in fb88 from 1,000 sq ft on up. Summary discussion continued..each person around the table was asked if they agreed or disagreed with the Summary as listed or with some changes made. (references made to sq ft means the amount of footage a new house being constructed would have to be to put in a sprinkler system i.e. starting with 3,500 sq ft and up.) Results were: Should be driven by a monetary value instead of a sq ft requirement Thinks the code should stay intact with perhaps putting off the mandatory sprinkler requirement for a year or two. Perhaps the real estate agent or builder could have the new owners sign off they are buying a house thats not up to a nationally recognized code. Could open up for lawsuits if a house is not. Consider changing seasonal to permanent housing put the language in. the rest should stay as written. Would like to see the requirement for sprinklers stay in the code. In favor of the compromises reached. Would like to see a compromise of 2500 sq ft to start out with. Very much for sprinklers, wants to see us move ahead. Add the language that if a door to the outside was added to each bedroom, perhaps sprinkle only the hot spots in the house for one floor i.e. stove, furnace, etc. Thinks costs are an issue. Would have liked more time to look at the costs. If a compromise can be made, then it wont be stopped and shouldnt be. Dont mandate particular combined systems because air/water quality folks cant do their work with these. Might like to start at 3,000 sq ft instead of 2,000. Why is fb88 different that we take it out of the code? A good issue made about lawyers, etc. getting into lawsuits over homes not built to National code. Concerned about the response time to a fire. A fire doubles half again in size each minute. The majority of fires responded to within 14-25 minutes, so without sprinklers, a house is toast. Echoes what #9 said. Believes in sprinklers. Likes the Summary Dick did. Would like to see hot spots covered even in seasonal buildings. We need to do something to get started. I can live with delayed time to start, change in the phased in process maybe start with 3500 sq ft. then 3,000. thinks however that 2,000 sq ft is the right #. Could live with doing the hotspots and a door to the outside to each bedroom. -4- NFPA has evolved thats what codes do. If we come up with something thats accepted, thats good. Dont agree with the 2,000 sq ft. Would want at least a minimum of 13-D system. Would like to see two-family houses start automatically or now, then phase in the sprinkler requirement for the one-family houses. Likes the Summary. Likes the 2,000 sq ft but maybe start at 2,500 and then tier it down. Ask the FMO to get data like age of house, etc. Likes providing options for people. Have to revisit and maybe consider two family for now. In favor of sprinklers, thinks we should require the two-family new construction homes THIS year, one family next year. Thinks seasonal shouldnt be exempted. Go for full adoption as it is. Should be kept simple, dont rewrite the code. Two years mandatory he likes, one year he doesnt. Start at 3,000 sq ft requirement. Doesnt believe homebuilders will be in favor. Summary of members present: Two family to be sprinklered phased in application, maybe 3,000 sq ft this year, phased in approach. There needs to be large public education done on this. Respectfully submitted, Kathy Chamberlain Secretary "#',-DTU^_`uJ K L [    C D E V  T X |sͺɶͮͪh@}B*phh@}h@}5B*phh@}h@}B*phh@}h@}5h'qh@}h'TYhLFi hI72hI72hI72hI725h+ThI72 h'TY5 h+T5 hB 5 hLFi5hLFihH5 hs5 hI725hLFihLFi5/#-U_`K L D E  2 ` b #gd@}gdI72gdLFigdWPE$a$gds$a$gdLFi,#%PR| /c+g]_gdLFi & Fgd@} ^`gd@}  ^ `gd@}$a$gd@}gd@}sy%&g (((0*1*++,,`,,h@}h@}h@}5h/G/hthI72h~ch@}B*phh~ch@}B*CJaJphh@}h@}B*phh@}h@}6B*]ph2}&'jk]^%&h i gd@}$a$gd@}gd'TYh`hgdI72`gdI72 & FgdI72gdLFii w !Z"""##$%J%%l&&(((L))1**++gd/G/ & Fgd@}h^hgd@} $h^ha$gd@}^gd/G/ & Fgd/G/gd'TY++`,a,y,,,gd/G/21h:pWPE/ =!"#8$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List$>#-U_`KLDE2  `b#%PR| / c +g]_2}&'jk]^%&hiwZJl   L!!1""###`$a$y$$$00000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000 000000000000000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0  0 00 0  0  0  0 00000000E2`b#%PR| / c +g]_$00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000s,#i +,,\@*]:*^l=*_l;*`,9*a,?*bA*clB*d,@*e<*f?*g@*hB*i,C*>>FF$     CCKK  $ 9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType= *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace %     $s  CE/[{ ! !!"'"##$33333333333333-U | giwl  t####a$$$$~0 *BDL\) bd]c. ypwL7x9^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.88^8`o(.^`o(.  L ^ `LhH.   ^ `hH. xx^x`hH. HLH^H`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.^`OJPJQJ^Jo(-^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hH^`CJOJQJo(hH ^`hH. pp^p`hH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PP^P`hH.ypw  b~BDL]cL7xx2 0u0         Db~                                  0        HB z zJ/G/I72@4d&<WPE'TYK?\LFisv[xit`I'q\8IE+T)}i@}tPuT@'$p@Unknowngz Times New RomanTimes New Roman5Symbol?& z ArialArial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"h&&fu Bu B!824$$2QHX)?LFi21MINUTES FROM THE 1ST TRAINING & CERTIFICATION TAGOITOIT(       Oh+'0   ,8 X d p |4MINUTES FROM THE 1ST TRAINING & CERTIFICATION TAGOIT Normal.dotOIT2Microsoft Office Word@F#@lh@,S@,Su ՜.+,0, hp  State of fb88, DAFSB$' 2MINUTES FROM THE 1ST TRAINING & CERTIFICATION TAG Title !"#$%&')*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ACDEFGHIKLMNOPQTRoot Entry FSVData  1Table(y2WordDocument4>SummaryInformation(BDocumentSummaryInformation8JCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q