We are about to mark the 15 year anniversary of H.R. 3980, known as the National Windstorm Protection Impact Reduction Act of 2004. As many in our industry know, communities and individuals across our country suffer losses from various wind effects ranging from thunderstorm winds to hurricanes and tornadoes that cause in excess of $5 Billion annually. The initial passage of H.R. 3980 and the subsequent renewals of this bill in 2008, 2012 and 2016 represent our country’s commitment to the highest standard of research, product design, product testing and building code improvement specifically meant to protect life and property. The four overarching questions asked during that first mandate were outlined vividly in the federal document;
- How vulnerable is the built environment in the United States to windstorm hazards? What are some of the top opportunities for, and primary barriers to, reducing these vulnerabilities?
- What are the size, structure, and focus of ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of windstorms in the United States, particularly with regard to research and development? How can non-federal entities such as the insurance industry and state and local governments contribute to, and benefit from, improved wind hazard mitigation?
- What gaps in data exist with regard to our knowledge and understanding of windstorm hazards, and how could the overall wind hazard mitigation portfolio be refocused or otherwise strengthened to improve mitigation in the United States?
- Will the program established by H.R. 3980 result in greater R&D breakthroughs and increased adoption of windstorm impact mitigation measures? How could H.R. 3980 be improved?
There is no disputing that answering the four questions above honestly leads to adoption of higher wind resistant standards in code. Creating a minimum standard of quality control, along with third party validation and authentication exists at the backbone of the scientific method. Third party authentication and validation also exists at the core of many of the best associations in the roofing industry, such as RCI and NRCA. The question is, after 15 years, how serious are we as an industry in adopting and using roof assemblies that meet more stringent standards? How robust are we at advocating for further adoption of these standards in state and local building codes? How serious are we about actually inspecting to ensure we are meeting these standards and codes?. And finally, do we spend more time fighting against validation and authentication than we do developing the next future advancement to improve roofing assemblies and reduce our human and financial losses?
SPRI’s consensus standards are developed by task forces that follow the ANSI process including soliciting input from others in the roofing industry. Many of these standards ensure a minimum level of quality control, validation, and third party authentication for protection against wind damage as outlined in H.R. 3980.
|ANSI/SPRI RP-14 2016||Wind Design for Vegetative Roofs|
|ANSI/SPRI GT-1 2016||Gutter Systems Test Standard|
|ANSI/SPRI RP-4 23 2013||Wind Design for Ballasted Single Ply|
|ANSI/SPRI WD-1 2016||Wind Design for Standard Practice for Roofing Assemblies|
|ANSI/SPRI/FM 4435 ES-1 2017||Wind Roof Standard for Edge Systems with Low Sloped Roofing Systems|
|ANSI/SPRI IA-1 2015||Standard Field Test Procedure for Determining the Uplift Resistance of Insulation and Insulation Adhesives Over Various Substances|
|ANSI/SPRI FX-1 2016||Standard Field Test Procedure for Determining Withdrawal Resistance of Roofing Fastener|
Visit www.spri.org to download these standards and learn more about how you can participate in development, research, and industry advancement to help protect life and property.
This blog was submitted by SPRI Member Richard Hein, Metal-Era, Inc.