As members of the American Institute of Architects Peconic Chapter, we are engaged in an ongoing effort to positively modify the New York State Building Code. In July 2008, we issued a letter to the New York State Fire Prevention and Building Code Council, Residential Code Subcommittee, proposing a number of changes to the building code, changes that we feel are warranted in certain requirements of the code due to their serious potential consequences to the health, safety and welfare of individuals living in our communities—consequences that, although they may be unintended, are nevertheless potentially hazardous or even lethal. This letter was sent to the Suffolk County executive, chief fire marshal and fire commissioner, as well as the building inspectors of all building departments in the five East End towns.
Our letter proposed the following critical change: The council should delete from the code the requirement to protect windows against ballistic impact (by strengthening glass, panels, shutters or other devices), as a protection of contents, instead of a protection of the health, safety and welfare of the occupants.
In 2003, as part of a wholesale change in the state building code, and along with a few other limited areas in the continental United States, our region was designated part of the 120-mph wind zone. One significant consequence of this change was that all new residential construction in our area now requires “opening protection.” We are now obligated to protect new windows from flying debris by one of several methods: either use of temporary plywood panels, strengthened glass windows, or rated “hurricane” shutters.
Plywood panels, which are to be screwed over the windows through the exterior finish into the framing, are specified descriptively in the code, can be built on site, and are most commonly employed for cost reasons. Both strengthened glass windows and hinged or coiling rated shutters must be factory-made units (the revised code now also prohibits the installation of site-built windows, a matter for another letter) and are substantially more expensive because they have to be extensively tested and proven against a specified sample of flying debris.
What is the purpose of window protection? It is supposed to prevent wind-borne debris from penetrating window openings in winds up to 120 mph. But what happens if the windows are penetrated by debris? Interior contents may be damaged, but will the occupants be threatened? One answer to this question is this remarkable fact: There are almost no deaths on record in the continental United States attributed to wind-blown debris, and the statistical evidence of injury due to glass penetration by debris at winds under 120 mph is reportedly insignificant.
So what can be the purpose of window protection? We have to reason that it is intended to protect interior contents. But is that the purpose of the building code? The residential code itself says on its first page that its purpose is ”intended to provide minimum requirements to safeguard public safety, health and general welfare.” And the code chooses not to define the protection of interior contents as its goal. Instead, because it is meant to protect the contents rather than the occupants, the “opening protection” provision in the code actually leads to an unintended result: it is potentially a threat to the lives of the individual occupants.
Homeowners face an important safety issue when the plywood panels or shutters are installed. Opaque panels or shutters—through which firefighters cannot see—may well become a hazard for occupants. In our area, where power outages are not uncommon during windstorms because of falling overhead lines, the use of combustible devices, to provide light or heat, is all too common. Who has not lit a candle to illuminate a room during an outage? If the egresses are securely covered over, the occupants on the inside cannot exit where they need to. In any emergency, whether or not a storm leads to a fire, rescuers on the outside will have difficulty locating the occupants within, or getting them out of the dwelling, if it is enclosed by panels or shutters.
There are impractical, negative side effects to installing plywood panels. In the face of an approaching storm, installing the panels in anything but zero wind conditions (because each panel will act like a sail) is next to impossible. Upon removal, panel attachment penetrations leave many openings in the water-resisting finish construction layers, most of which cannot be properly repaired without removal of both the finishes and window units.
Strengthened windows can, of course, be seen through, but rescuers cannot necessarily identify the locations of strengthened glass. Outwardly, these windows appear to be little different from conventional windows, but they may be lethally dangerous in an emergency, since rescuers can lose valuable time trying to determine what tools are needed to break them. When they do, strengthened windows make their task unnecessarily arduous and dangerous, since a fireman must carry with him and use a diamond-bit chainsaw to go either in or out through any strengthened glass window openings in his way. Strengthened windows are, in fact, so strong that standard 2x4 and 2x6 walls around them have reportedly failed the missile test that the windows themselves were required to pass.
In sum, we have an overwhelming concern that the installation of panels, strengthened windows or shutters currently required is contributing to potential situations that will likely result in future disaster that includes the loss of life. A strong case can be made that opening protection, instead of increasing the public’s safety, is actually, in fact, a hazard, and that, since it is directed at safeguarding household contents instead of the occupants, opening protection contradicts the stated purpose of the code.
The code does not now require panelled or shuttered houses to be vacated. But if it did make this law, it would be safeguarding unoccupied (hard to verify) houses. Therefore, it would be once again affirming that its purpose is to protect empty property, not the public. We have to ask: If opening protection is supposed to prevent damage to the contents of a structure, is this really not a gesture to the insurance industry? A large part of our community resides here seasonally and a portion are in retirement—they may not be physically or economically able to erect protection in time for a storm. Will failure to install the temporary panels, required by code, be grounds for an insurance claim rejection?
Our July letter to the Residential Code of New York State Technical Subcommittee has met with limited response. In the meantime, we note that the State Residential Building Code is about to be reissued, amended this year. We have been told that the comment period for current revisions has ended and that our position will not be examined until the opening of the next round of revision comments in approximately three years.
We hope that publishing this letter will help inform members of the public and will lead to their support for more timely action.
A copy of our position letter, which addresses other issues in the code, and contact information may be found on our website, AIAPeconic.org.
Mr. Lesser is chairman of the Codes Committee of the American Institute of Architects, Peconic Chapter.
27east on Mar 17, 2009