Should we be Serious About Adhering to Wind Protection Standards?


We are going to celebrate the 15th anniversary of H.R. 3980, recognized as the Effect Mitigation Act of 2004 on National Windstorm Safety. As those in our business realize, cities and citizens around our nation experience damage from different wind impacts varying from thunderstorm winds to hurricanes and tornadoes that cause more than $5 trillion annually. The original H.R. passage 3980 and the subsequent renewals of this bill in 2008, 2012 and 2016 represent the dedication of our government to the highest level of science, product design, product inspection and enhancement of the building code clearly designed to preserve life and property. In the federal text, the four overarching questions raised during the first directive were illustrated vividly;

How susceptible is the constructed infrastructure to windstorm threats in the United States? What are some of the top possibilities and major challenges to reducing these vulnerabilities?

What is the scale, structure, and emphasis of ongoing initiatives in the United States to reduce the effect of windstorms, particularly in terms of research and development? How can non-federal agencies such as the insurance sector and state and local governments lead to better prevention of wind risks and benefit from them?

In terms of our expertise and perception of windstorm risks, what data deficiencies remain, and how might the overall portfolio of wind threat mitigation be refocused or otherwise improved to maximize mitigation in the United States?

Will the proposal built by H.R. Will 3980 contribute to stronger R&D breakthroughs and expanded implementation of prevention strategies for windstorm impacts? Why will H.R. be willing to 3980 enhanced?

There is no dispute that addressing the above four questions frankly contributes to higher wind resistant requirements being implemented in the code. The foundation of the scientific method is the establishment of a basic level of quality management, coupled with third-party confirmation and authentication. There is also third-party certification and confirmation at the heart of all of the strongest roofing business organizations, such as RCI and NRCA. The problem is how serious are we, as an industry, after 15 years, in embracing and utilizing roof assemblies that follow more rigorous standards? How rigorous are we in calling for these requirements to be more implemented in state and municipal building codes? How serious are we in actually checking to guarantee that certain requirements and codes are met? And ultimately, are we wasting more time battling certification and verification than we are designing the next potential progress to strengthen roofing assemblies and reduce our human and financial losses?

The consensus requirements of SPRI are established by task forces who follow the framework of ANSI, including seeking feedback from those in the roofing industry. Many of these requirements maintain, as illustrated in H.R., a minimum degree of quality management, certification, and third party authentication for wind damage security. 3980. -3980.

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest