All How-To Topics
|
|
Code-change alert: Fire sprinklers in all new homes
comments (111) August 11th, 2009 in Blogs
Chris Ermides, associate editor
In the Dec/Jan 2009 issue of Fine Homebuilding (#200), I reported on a new code that requires fire sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and town houses. The code appears in the 2009 IRC, but doesn’t go into effect until the start of 2011.
It’s a heated issue
I just spent several months researching and writing a feature story on fire sprinklers for our Oct/Nov 2009 issue (#206). The article explores the myths and facts of residential systems, how they work, how much they’ll cost, who will install them, etc. It doesn’t get into the debate that’s flared up (sorry), however, which—from what I can tell—is pretty intense.
Money or life? Hmmm…that’s a tough one
So the whole purpose of fire sprinklers is to save lives. Duh, I know. But I have to make the point because there are people out there who think otherwise. And there are many who are passionately opposed to the new requirement, so much so that they’re spending a lot of time (and by spending I mean lobbying and by time I mean money) trying to block the code from being adopted. Why, you ask? To be honest, I’m wondering the same thing. And my guess is money.
What’s the problem?
|
Those who oppose the mandate say they’re concerned about the potential of pipes freezing in colder climates, damage from accidental discharge of sprinkler heads, and the availability of adequate water supply in homes served by well water. Let’s take a look at those arguments…
Frozen pipes?
I think most of this concern relates to a standalone system, which is a system of piping separate from the home’s plumbing. The water in these pipes is stagnant until a sprinkler head activates. OK—stagnant water is more susceptible to freezing than moving water (backflow valves are required to prevent contaminating the water supply). But what are the chances of water freezing in a heated home? And don’t we take precautions in new construction to protect all piping from freezing? An alternative is multipurpose systems; the piping in these systems is part of the home’s cold-water line, often made of PEX (which is less susceptible to freeze damage), and the water’s always moving.
Concern about frozen pipes is a lame argument.
posted in: Blogs, business, safety, plumbing, irc, code, fire sprinkler, fire
|
|
|
|
-
How to Paint Fiber-Cement Siding
Painter Jim Lacey shares some tips for caulking and painting fiber-cement siding. read more
|
|
Comments (111)
Posted: 6:25 pm on April 6th
Posted: 5:58 am on February 11th
Posted: 10:55 am on September 27th
Posted: 10:51 am on September 27th
Posted: 7:19 pm on June 8th
By the Way, What in the world are you thinking with your selection in the poll of "burn, baby burn"? SHAME ON YOU. Talk about slanting a poll. Of course no one wants this; but again, has NOTHING to do with life safety - ONLY dollars ...... in the insurance companies pockets; and, so the fire depts don't have to do their jobs.
This requirement will lead to nothing except more and more people building WITHOUT permits! And, more power to them! Talk about corruption. This is a great example. The ICC and "powers that be" need to be disbanded. Half the codes should be done away with, they are there for no other reason than to protect insurance companies profits. Oh, sorry, I must be a raving lunatic! I'd rather be raving than corrupted like these idiot building officials blowing smoke up our ........, well, you fill in the blank. Anyway, we don't have to worry about that, the fire sprinklers will drown us anyway before we feel the smoke up our ....... !!!!!!
Posted: 12:21 pm on November 5th
Posted: 12:09 pm on November 5th
The whole thing stinks! Laws on the books should be freely accessable to the public. How else would you know if you're breaking the law?
I suggest we sue the publisher for collusion with the manufacturers. Any hot young lawyers looking to make a name out there?
Posted: 7:43 pm on September 28th
In my berg if you apply for any permit (even an outdoor deck)
you will be installing hard wired smokes inside your home.
(BTW - I am all for hardwired smokes but NOT forced re-tro fit)
What is to stop the Sprinkler Lobby from a similar action of forcing people to retro-fit existing const.?
Safety Shmaefty - $3 BILLION dollar industry created overnite if mandate goes thru.
Write your legs. & reps. and make your State Bldg. Code Council stand up to this Monopolized, Industry Lobby Group which is all it has become.
Posted: 11:45 am on September 28th
What's going to burn?
Do you realize it'll probably double his cost for the home by the time he has to provide adequate water storage and pressure. The cost of pumps and procuring a way to power them off grid. For what? To put out his pan of flaming bacon grease....oh yeah water and grease fires....hmmmmm.
And that brings up another point. Are those on well water now going to be "required" to have an automatic generator in the event of power failure. What requirements will their be for regulated inspections and maintenance. And, how long will the fuel supply have to run as a home owner may leave the entire winter and not know that their regular power source has been interupted.
What will be next? Separate power feed for the pump when the FD cuts power to the house which is typical during a fire. How about a separate tap requirement so the FD can link their supply to your sprinkler system?
Where does it end?
Posted: 11:11 am on September 28th
At what point would you be intrested enough to inform readers whom will be affected? (Even the finest of homes needs a permit)
The ICC president also serves on IAFC and is an 18 year Fire veteran & Fire Cheif. Seems like a bit of conflict of intrest doesn't it?
They are the only game in town and have found a way to create law with NO public input.
Posted: 4:43 pm on September 24th
Stormando,
We're not silent because we've written you off as a crackpot. We're silent because we're busy with other stuff.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, my goal wasn't to tell everyone how great and glorious the new sprinkler code is. My intention was to educate our readers who may be affected by the code. We're not going to do an investigation on how the code came about - maybe 60 minutes or Dateline will go after it.
I feel very good about the article we published - it gives folks an overview of the systems, includes pros/cons, and alerts readers that there's a debate going on.
I'm sorry that you live in an area where sprinkler systems can run $8 plus per square foot. I mentioned that some jurisdictions are charging excessive fees for water taps, meters, etc. It’s not right, and no municipality should be allowed to get away with it. I’m sure at some point you’ll get the ear of someone in your area who can change that.
I'm sorry, too, that you're canceling your subscription. It’s never good to lose a subscriber. I'm sure you work hard for your money like the rest of us. So if you feel so strongly that this magazine isn’t worth your money and time, then you deserve to get it back.
Best of luck to you.
Chris
Posted: 3:58 pm on September 23rd
Write me off as a crackpot if you want.
Anyone intrested should google "wabo letter ICC zubia"
and simply google ANYTHING re fire sprinklers and see how many websites the fire industry & sprinkler industry maintain dedicated to taking your money.
AND - BE CERTAIN to look at IRC fire sprinkler coallition which is a website trying to look like its sponsered by IRC or ICC. They are again laying plans to pay your local officials to attend meetings to stack the vote with a 2/3 majority.
Posted: 5:38 pm on September 22nd
Posted: 12:49 pm on September 22nd
Posted: 7:30 pm on September 21st
Residential sprinklers should be optional. Who knows - maybe home buyers would demand them.
Posted: 6:25 pm on September 20th
Exposure to smoke, fire and flames: 3,377 (Nearly 1,000 of these were related to cigarette smoking)
Fall on and from stairs and steps, bed, chair or other furniture or slipping: 2522
There's no guarantee that residential sprinkler systems will save lives.
Banning smoking (although perhaps difficult to enforce) WOULD likely save lives.
Enforcing a residential sprinkler code means the use of even more material resources and fossil fuel.
In the end that's a lot of plastic and emissions for what will likely be very little return.
I think the article misses some important considerations.
But I'll keep my subscription!
Posted: 6:16 pm on September 20th
Majority of the info is from the ones who will benefit massivly.
Using pics & info from Tyco and quoting "1 in 16 million discharge falsely" W/O mentioning a massive re-call of Tyco Sprinkler Heads is highly irresponsible IMO.
How do you even come up with a stat like 1:16million?
Apparently it is common practice for ICC votes to be swayed by paying for persons to attend and vote on things they will benefit massivly from. Sorry but I see no difference between Acorn & ICC except that in book sales alone the ICC probably makes Acorn look like the size of "well - an Acorn".
Ask Chris to see if his friend (electrition or fire fighter?)can dig up hard verifiable copies of actual receipts to support 1.5% on his home project including the water supply.
My own FD has $1.50 on their website as the Sq Ft cost.
My actual experince was closer to $8.68 per Sq Ft.
I have challenged Fire Officials, Habitat for H. builders, anyone to provide verifiable receipts for anything coming close to 1.6% (now its already down to $.085 says FHB) and never has anything been shown to me.
Perhaps FHB has some clout to actually look into these stated costs and see if anyone can prove them to be true W/O leaving out the fact that any system needs a water supply to make it work. Leaving out the water supply is the key to any of the pro-sprinkler fanatics arguements.
Last paragraph says it all - NONE of the crap passed thru ICC votes by MFGRS. and then mandated for you to purchase by code adoption of your local Gvmnt. will "break the bank" when amortized. Its when you add THIS single largest mandated expense ever passed to all the others then it does become significant even when amortized over 30 years.
Not talking about $30 circuit breakers here. We are talking REAL MONEY in the range of $15,000 if averaged across the US.
Posted: 2:18 pm on September 20th
Posted: 11:40 am on September 19th
Having been involved with the discussion regarding residential sprinklers, I think back to my days in the military. They say that the first thing to die in a war is “the truth.” For that reason, those of us that have supported the mandate of residential sprinklers have tried to get out the truth so everyone can decide.
Let me answer some questions on cost. You will hear all ranges of cost from $0.30 per square foot to $10.50 per square foot. The truth is that most numbers that are quoted have been paid by someone. That doesn’t mean that they are the norm, or the average, or anything. What is the average cost of an automobile? You get the idea.
The lowest cost system that I designed and helped to install cost -$8,000 for a 6,000 square foot home. That translates to -$1.33 per square foot. This was my brother’s home, which could easily be featured in this fine magazine.
How did the cost result in negative numbers? He was planning to install his water piping in copper tube. My other brother the plumbing contractor had already purchased the copper. When I convinced my older brother to sprinkler his home, I told him we were switching to CPVC from copper. The cost of the returned copper tube paid for the cost of the CPVC pipe, including the extra pipe for the multipurpose piping system. It also paid for the sprinklers, and he still pocketed $8,000. Okay, the labor was free, since his brothers installed the sprinkler and plumbing system.
I have designed many residential systems. The lowest installed cost was around $0.55 per square foot. However, that is not what the builder paid. The builder paid close to $2 per square foot based on what the contractor charged. We call the difference profit and overhead.
When sprinklers are mandated, there are more contractors in the market installing the sprinkler systems. All of a sudden, the price drops. Many times, it drops significantly.
I live in an area where sprinklers are mandated in many wealthy suburbs. The average price of a system for these homes is around $8 per square foot. The reason it is so high is that they don’t install multipurpose piping systems and they add a lot of extras to the sprinkler system. Extra alarms are installed, steel pipe is often used, this requires backflow preventers, etc. Realize that these homes sell in the million dollar range. So, the price is not completely out of line. It is like adding the extras to an automobile. You will pay the price for the extras, however, they are not necessary nor required.
We recently had a demonstration of contractors installing residential sprinkler systems in approximately 1,100 square foot affordable homes. For one home, a two man crew from a top residential sprinkler contractor roughed in the entire residential sprinkler system in 40 minutes. That translates to less than 2 hours of labor. The only thing required after the rough in was to go back and screw in the sprinklers when the home was painted and ready for final installation. Pretty simple, and very inexpensive. This home had 9 sprinklers. So figure the cost of the pipe and sprinklers then add 2 hours of labor and you just determine the cost to install the sprinkler system. It worked out to $0.49 per square foot.
This may seem out of the ordinary, however, this crew does nothing but residential sprinkler installations. They had it down to a science and could beat their competitors in price. Others will figure out how to do it this quickly and easily.
As for all the comments on freezing, we currently install water piping in all homes. Plumbing contractors have to be concerned about frozen pipes. The same is true for residential sprinkler systems. It is matter of proper installation. The install residential sprinkler systems in homes in Barrow, Alaska. If they can address the concern for frozen pipes in Barrow, they can do the same for any other location in the United States.
For those concerned that the government is shoving residential sprinklers down our throats, that is not the case. The ICC is not a part of the government. All of us involved in codes and standards development participate in the ICC process. The ICC publishes the codes which are offered to the public to adopt. States and local jurisdictions than adopt these codes.
The mandate of residential sprinklers is an effort to end one of the major tragedies on the United States, the lose of life in residential fires. If 3,000 people a year died in airplane crashes, we would demand that something be done by the government. When approximately 200 people a year were dying from Ford Pinto’s exploding, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. When 3,000 people dies in a terrorist attack, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. So, why are we not demanding that the government do something about 3,000 innocent lives being lost to fire in residential buildings each year?
Some have claimed that people only die in older homes. That is not true. People die in homes of any age, including new homes. In 2007, seven college students died in a North Carolina beach front home fire. That home was new. The lawn sprinkler system, to protect the bushes, cost more than a residential sprinkler system would have for the home. But a residential sprinkler system was not offered to the owners.
In the 1920's, when the codes first started mandating indoor plumbing, there was concerns about cost and that it only applies to new homes. At that time, less than 3 percent of the homes in the United States had indoor plumbing. Out houses worked fine, why increase the cost of a home? Today, nobody complains that indoor plumbing is mandated by the government. In 90 years, the people will laugh that we argued against the mandate of residential sprinklers.
Posted: 6:01 pm on September 18th
I can only go by my real life experince of doing a major remodel on my own home in LFP WA (North Seattle).
The experince was nothing but a real eye opener slap in the face expose on the absolute disdain from BO, FO planning dept. (all gvmnt - except Water Dept. whom were honest and helpfull)
I am an amature wanna be builder I guess with 2 tiny properties that I will likely never get to improve due to F sprinkler issue. How does that make my tennants safer?
What elase do you want to know? Unlike officials at ICC & Tyco I am hiding nothing. You can reach me by email from my email to editor.
In the mean time I challenge Anyone to provide a verifiable "receipt" for a house built in the last 5 years and a Sprinkler System for $1.61 per foot INCLUDING a water supply for it. I have asked plenty and have never been given anything. Perhaps someone would respond to a request from FHB?
Posted: 1:36 pm on September 18th
Wow...sorry you're so disappointed.
What do you do and where is 'here'?
Posted: 11:21 am on September 18th
Practice some actual investigative journalism and at the very least debunk the completely phony cost estimates that you have been given by the fire industry.
"You want a meter with that?!" I challenge anyone to come up with an actual PAID receipt for a sprinkler system that cost $1.61 per foot. Ludicrous figure. Here a dedicated seperate meter costs $5,500 (Just the meter NOT the trench & pipe to house). REAL COSTS are closer to $15,000 to $35,000 per house.
Insurance discount - BS - most offer none.
Worst of all is ignoring the way the ICC vote was conducted. Fire industry paid for members & reg. building inspectors to stack the vote.
Like Acorn the ICC has lost any sight of what it was originally intended to do and is just another industry driven lobby group to get mandated products into the ICC book.
Given the economy the timing couldn't be worse. If any of those bastards cared about anyone they would withdraw this requirement until all the BS is worked out. If NO ONE can afford a house what is the point of ANY "safety" requirements?
Investigate for cripes sake.
Posted: 10:13 am on September 18th
We all know the benefits of a sprinkler system. But being forced to install these systems looks to me like a handout to the fire sprinkler manufacturers. If this were counterbalanced by a mandated reduction in insurance rates I'd begin to think the Code officials actually had the good of the homeowner in mind.
Posted: 1:10 pm on September 15th
It’s similar to the earthquake codes where the issue isn’t life safety but that the structure must be habitable after an event.
Money would be better spent on 5/8” drywall, fire resistant siding, and eliminating eave vents.
Put me down in the “what a sham” category
Kurt Housh
San Anselmo, CA
Posted: 12:01 pm on September 10th
However painting those against it as greedy, is really pretty stupid (yes, you did this).
You won't listen to Habitat For Humanity and others who oppose it.
Really, you think that Habitat for Humanity is GREEDY????
The problem is that MANDATORY regulation of MORE CRAP = HIGHER HOUSING COST = ONLY RICH / WEALTHY CAN AFFORD HOUSING
This affects primarily POOR PEOPLE.
While you spend the fictional $3,000,000 to save one person, how many homeless and poor die?
The US tax structure rewards home ownership with tax incentives, and the same with investment property.
By making it harder for poor to achieve these two things you RAISE NOMINAL TAXES ON THE POOR.
I am lucky enough to own more than 1 home. I have seen the tax structure and savings first hand.
Warren Buffet stated that he pays the lowest (percentagewise) taxes now that is one of the richest people in the world.
Reform the tax code away from such a benefit, or make it easier for the poor to access.
After all dying from cold, hunger, or the flu is still dying.
Posted: 5:39 pm on September 9th
Fire sprinklers do in fact saves lives & property, emphasis on lives, you can always buy more crap.
Frozen sprinkler/water lines:
A well engineered sprinkler system will not have the line running through an unheated space e.g. the attic, garage or exterior walls.
If the owner decides to throttle the heat to a portion of the house low enough to freeze his lines and cause property damage... whose really at fault here?
Damage to sprinkler heads from kids:
Sprinkler head manufacturers do make "Concealed Residential Sprinklers", they are basically flush with the ceiling and you only see a smooth concealing escutcheon (trim plate).
Sidewall sprinkler heads actually do stick-out into the living space but they do offer low profile heads to be less obtrusive e.g. the Tyco Series LFII (TY2384) Residential Flush Horizontal Sidewall Sprinklers comes to mind.
260 gallon bladder tank?!? From a mechanical perspective I would use a pump and a storage tank if your water supply is iffy.
Accidental discharge is a non-issue just look at the stats.
Lets get this straight, 26 GPM from 2 (TWO) sprinkler heads.
Yes, it'll be a mess if a sprinkler head fuses, it would be a BIGGER MESS if there were no sprinklers and the firemen had to use their 2 1/2 hoses & axes to put the fire out.
In a nutshell these residential sprinkler systems are Life Safety Systems (to protect lives NOT property), when there's a fire (god forbid) the smoke alarm is suppose to give the family an early warning to get the hell out. If the fire grows enough to fuse a sprinkler head the drop in system pressure will set off another warning (usually a horn/strobe), the water pattern formed by the sprinkler head is designed to contain the fire in that area so as to give the occupants enough time to escape and to give the firefighters a "safer" fire to fight.
Mike Guertin I respect your knowledge and admire your work but in your post you said "Put those funds in a locked account to keep politicians away.", that what the Social Security/Ponzi scheme was suppose to be, these corrupt politicians still call it a TRUST FUND.
Posted: 6:50 am on September 4th
The IRCs regulation doesn't take effect until 2011, but your municipality may be adopting it early. Ask your inspector for clarification. He/she might be misinformed.
Good luck.
Chris
Posted: 4:29 pm on August 31st
thanks for any input
Posted: 9:51 am on August 31st
Frozen pipes – Yes,I can think of a lot of reasons that it is more likely than standard plumbing. It is common for some people in rural areas to close off part of the house during cold weather. Of course precautions are currently made to keep pipes from freeing but it is often in specific areas of a house, not the whole thing. I don’t think that the water is always moving in the area of the bedrooms. Frozen pipes is a real argument. OK, so the homeowner turns the heat down to 45, the pipe to the sprinkler freezes (OK for PEX but the water still won’t flow) and there is a fire. Now the builder gets sued because of the homeowners choice. Maybe the pipes should be wrapped with heat tape, LOL.
Accidental discharge – Anyone have boys ages 8-18 in the house? Now it is not a broken lamp it is a flooded living room and whatever is below it. My guess is that the likelihood is far greater than 1:16,000,000
Well water – My bladder tank isn’t anywhere near 260 gallons. Again, low income people in rural areas need the higher cost systems that have more complicated storage and pressure components.
It’s got to be cost – Darn right it’s the cost. Only 1-2% for high end homes, maybe closer to 5% for entry level homes on private wells. Put the cost burden on those who are already struggling to buy a house, great idea. I guess I’d like a list of plumbers that will install the system for $2250 because it is usually more like $7000 to hook up 3 sinks and a 2 toilets. There are cost trade-offs in every aspect of life but don’t eliminate the decision. Laws are being passed that end up making cars, appliances & houses more expensive and then we wonder why everybody’s credit cards are maxed and the economy crashes.
Posted: 1:31 pm on August 28th
Posted: 4:42 pm on August 24th
Cost to design a 10' coverage per sprinkler head in a 20' x 30' building was $1,500.
The fire sprinkler permit purchased through the county was around $500.
The install performed by licensed/bonded sprinkler outfit was around $3,500 (did not include the required 220v electrical service to power booster pump).
The booster pump is cast iron/connected by threaded orange pvc pipe. Lucky for me that I was home on the evening that the pvc pipe threads finally blew out of the constant pressure pump. Shop vac worked pretty good to remove more than 200 gallons of water from the garage floor.
Reports from other builders in the area - include leaking sprinkler heads - ruined flooring, drywall, etc. The installers bond does not cover other trades repair work - when the sprinkler system fails.
Reality check: why hire a fire department if every building will have a fire sprinkler system?
Posted: 4:14 pm on August 23rd
I work in pharmaceuticals and healthcare ecoomics. We have the same issue a lot: Is treating a large population with a particular drug cost effective?
Take a hypothetical situation: Every 1,000 installations of a sprinkler system can save one life. At a price of, say $3,000 per sprinkler system, this would mean that each saved life costs $3,000,000. That is a lot of money.
Now, I am NOT saying that saving a life shouldn't be worth $3,000,000. The real question is: Is there some other way to save more than one life with the same amount of money. It would appear to me that, e.g., an additional fire escape route could be a cheaper way to save more lives. Granted, though, I am not a builder, and don't understand the costs as well. I only wanted to suggest a way on how to discuss the cost issue.
Posted: 4:29 pm on August 21st
Posted: 7:32 am on August 20th
Posted: 9:46 pm on August 19th
Builders lobbying for this amendment argued that fire sprinkler systems add too much cost to homes and that only sprinkler companies would benefit. Their REAL CONCERN, however, was more likely that the systems, installed by subcontractors, would add another source of construction defects that could increase their liability.
HOT believes that the added cost would be small if sprinklers were mandatory but very large if they were optional. That's because builders would be able to price them artificially high to discourage a choice that they clearly don't want consumers to make.
Gov. Rick Perry was caught between his buddies in the powerful homebuilder's lobby, with their large campaign contributions, and a public safety issue that attacks municipal rights and nullifies existing statues for cities that already have adopted the new building codes. Perry's own Governor's Mansion would have been spared by sprinkler systems, but instead it burned down. And since he often argued against federal legislation that infringes on states' rights, we thought he'd find it difficult to oppose the rights of municipalities to set local building codes. In the end however, he signed the bill into law, and it seems that [builder] money does talk.
Posted: 6:47 pm on August 19th
For example, the higher cost (even if it's "only" a couple thousnd) will ensure that many more folks will continue to live in ancient, inadequate housing, that unlicensed contractors will prosper, and reduce respect for ALL codes.
A sincere as sprinkler proponents are about their concerns, you can be sure they won't want to give up their monopoly and let just any plumber instal them. Oh, no ... they will want to 'engineer' each specific job, tack on a 'maintenance agreement,' etc. As for flushing them with the household water and using ordinary PEX fittings - lots of luck!
There's also the 'more is better' issue. That is, I see no attempt made to aim this requirement at those specific places that are either more likely to have fires (kitchens) or have fires resulting in loss of life (trailers).
Are sprinklers effective? Well, ask your insurance agent: exactly how much will you save if you sprinkler your house? Compare that to what yuo would save in heating bills if you upgrade your insulation. As I see it, that's the payback period sprinklers have to meet.
Ironically, once they have that payback, you won't need codes to get them installed. Let the market work.
Posted: 10:21 am on August 19th
Posted: 11:11 pm on August 18th
That said, the IBC, counterpart to the IRC for commercial buildings, generally makes sprinklers an option that allows trade offs. However, in the last two code cycles (2003 and 2006), the requirements for sprinklering of residential occupancies have changed, causing similar concerns to the 2009 IRC. Sprinklers are a safety improvement, but like ALL safety improvements, they can be a tough monetary sell.
Active safety systems, like sprinklers and smoke detection, are only as good as their maintenance. Passive safety systems, like fire separations, fireblocking, limiting the combustibility of finishes and furnishings, are good as long as they are in place.
I think what is being lost in these arguments is, if you properly design, construct and maintain a home per even a rudimentary code, you will have a safe home. But don't we as a group (city, county, state, nation) have a history of wanting to make buildings safer? The question here is simple - Is requiring sprinklers in homes worth the change? Voice your opinion not just in this blog, but with the authority having code adoption jurisdiction where you live.
Posted: 11:09 pm on August 18th
To those who cite "safety" as the issue- I wonder if Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, John Adams and Abraham Lincoln knew the horrible danger they were in because they didn't have sprinkler systems. What's next? Halon systems? Mandatory security alarms? Mandatory nuclear bomb shelters? Air filtration systems to protect us from possible gas or biological attacks? Should we install rubber roofs to prevent meteors crashing into our living rooms? Hmmm... the same whiny people who are always screaming about handguns and crying about the taxes they never pay are strangely mute on this issue... perhaps because they're the same ones living in the McMansions?
As Franklin once said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Posted: 7:37 pm on August 18th
Posted: 4:04 pm on August 18th
Regards,
Chris
Posted: 1:41 pm on August 18th
On April 22, over the heavy opposition and lobbying of the NFPA, the NFSA and Michigan’s fire service community, the Michigan Residential Code Review committee voted 10 to 2 to approve the code change proposal offered by Habitat for Humanity of Michigan to remove the R313 requirement for mandatory sprinklers from Michigan’s 2009 residential code. The AIA representative to the committee voted in favor of Habitat’s code change.
Besides Habitat for Humanity of Michigan, the coalition against sprinklers included, among others, the Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Association of Counties, the Community Economic Development Association of Michigan, the Michigan Association of Home Builders, a plethora of local government officials including building inspectors and even two fire service personnel.
Lee Schwartz
Executive Vice President for Government Relations
Michigan Association of Home Builders
1-800-748-0432
Michigan's argument against the forced installation of fire sprinklers is compelling, and includes the NFPA's own data such as:
A January 2008 study (1) by Fire Analysis and Research Division of the National Fire Protection Association contained the following finding:
“The chances of surviving a reported home fire when working smoke alarms are present are 99.45%.”
The same study reported a survival rate for homes fires without working smoke alarms of 98.87%.
With survival rates that high, even when there are no working smoke alarms, are sprinklers really justified?
The same report also found:
“Because there is evidence that working smoke alarms often act so early that they convert what would have been a reported fire into a very small, unreported fire, the potential savings from universal working smoke alarms could be even larger.”
and this:
While any fire death is a tragedy, the annual residential fire death rate in Michigan is 1.31 people per 100,000. This rate equals the average number of Michigan citizens who die from asthma each year. (4)
The chances of dying in a residential fire in Michigan are 1 in 76,362 while the chances of dying in an auto accident are nearly ten times higher at 1 in 7,500.
Regardless of one's position on the need for sprinklers, doesn't this make the question of who benefits most from this legislation worth examining?
Regards,
Richard Taylor, AIA
www.rtastudio.com
Posted: 12:27 pm on August 18th
Posted: 11:14 am on August 18th
Posted: 10:50 am on August 18th
Posted: 10:28 am on August 18th
So if you are going to use the arguement that it should be up to the owner lets learn how to correctly inform them. How many contractors are sitting down with Harry Homeowner and giving sprinkler systems the same amount of time as what counter tops, kitchen cabinets, siding, paint, and carpet can be installed?? Let's also remember that even though you build the home with the intent to live in it forever, sometime someone else will be living in the house -- living with all your decisions. Whether you build a straw hut or a brick house.
Kudo's to the build it in a logical place.
Posted: 9:04 am on August 18th
Many good points have been made in the previous posts - the most important of which is that the vast majority of home fires occur in houses over 60 years old. Those are the ones with the outdated electrical systems, the cause of many house fires.
The NAHB pushed hard against this code, but the firefighters and the fire-suppression lobby behind them won the day. I listened to the tapes of the arguments for and against the provision during the IRC meeting in MN and was shocked that the legitimate concerns of the homebuilding and design industry were ignored.
Cost is indeed an issue, but not because of the 1%-2% cost of these systems. Rather it is the unending upward spiral in home costs - this is another contributing factor. 2% here and there starts adding up.
Next on the agenda is enactment of the commercial standard for stairs, which will require a maximum 7" rise and minimum 11" tread. Again, we'll be told it only contributes a small percentage to the cost of a house...
Posted: 7:42 am on August 18th
The IRC and the insurance companies should concern themselves with the true problem of poor building site selection rather than the occasional house fire.
Will the sprinklers work, if one spills hot coffee on their crotch?"
Posted: 3:22 am on August 18th
Posted: 2:26 am on August 18th
Posted: 11:37 pm on August 17th
Where to start...
Sprinklers are supplied with pressurized water from black steel pipe. The water often lies in the pipe for years. They are supposed to be drained and refilled. They are steel because it doesn't burn [duh].
In a fire when they spray it isn't the fire or the smoke that does more than 50% of the damage it is the black rusty filthy water. A minor fire can literally put you out of house and home. I've been a carpenter for about 35 years and have seen the results both in houses and in commercial bldgs.
In fact the same is true of the fireman's hose. Not the filth necessarily but the water.
As to cost they are custom fitted to each unit. They are very labor intensive. Lobbying has kept the head certifications and new tech out and prices up.
So if there has been lobbying I suspect the companies making these products. It may be that firefighters were recruited to 'do the dirty work', I don't know. I bet the money behind them was mega company. we are talking billions , not millions if they succeed.
What are the sources of fires. That I think is the correct question not how to install a firehouse in every home.
Just from looking at the nightly news for about 50 years I'd have to conclude that smoking, kitchen stupidity and lack of maintenance of appliances that use combustibles are the top 3 sources of residential fires.
Smoking eventually kills the source of the fire-a person.Inspecting every house for a carbon monoxide detector would be taxes well spent.
If you want to spend money on increasing your safety go from propane or gas to electric, that should reduce the cause of most kitchen fires. Forgetting to turn off a heating element is still a risk. Spending on a sensor to turn off a burner at say 140F might be a better idea than sprinklers.
I will be building a house with solar water heat. A well insulated storage tank will get me through the stormy days and dark nights. My electricity will be also produced from the sun and stored in batteries and occasionally bought from my electric utility. The chance of fire is minimal .
That brings me to electricity. Newer breakers and service boxes have been made that are sensitive to arcing in the line. They trip automatically when even an intermittent fault occurs. Last but not least :
No one ever got out of here alive. We can manage risk but we were not born to be immortal, just intelligent,calm, hardworking and mindful. If you ever thought that campaign finance reform didn't touch you directly, think again-this reeks of influence peddling, not of helping the common good- either firefighters or homeowners/renters.
Take a few deep breaths and definitely attend your local gov't meetings. Speak up loudly and intelligently. Make it clear that your vote and your financial support as well as volunteer hours will not support any who vote for this.
Posted: 8:03 pm on August 17th
Maybe next round, the masons will pack the house and all houses will have to be made of masonry.
And then after that the metal stud industry will show up...
And then the bidet industry...
I suspect that unless the fire-fighters tend to continue packing the house at every ICC meeting, the requirement will be softened (or eliminated) and some options and exceptions will be made available with the next consensus cycle.
I think that the consensus process needs to be changed so that this can't happen again.
If this issue bothers you then you should lobby the jurisdictions you work in to ammend the code at its adoption and eliminate the requirement.
Posted: 6:30 pm on August 17th
Inform me, then let me make up my own mind.
Posted: 5:10 pm on August 17th
Posted: 5:06 pm on August 17th
Regarding evacuating a house in 30 seconds: How many people do we all know who like to have a drink or three in the evening? Or take a sleeping pill to help them get to sleep? Could those folks evacuate in 30 seconds? My neighbor (who liked to drink) had smoke alarms but died, along with her dogs, when her house burned last year. I'm planning to retrofit my 30 year old house with sprinklers.
Posted: 5:04 pm on August 17th
Posted: 4:09 pm on August 17th
Posted: 3:33 pm on August 17th
Repairman if you monitor your smoke detectors the alarm company will call the fire company for you - house burns down. If you install sprinklers and monitor them the house ends up wet in some area. If you do not monitor (extra cost) you come home to ashes or a wet area in your house. If you have a tank, once the tank is empty there is no more water in the sprinkler system. If you are on a well or municipal system you will have water pretty deep. Better monitor it so those firemen will turn off the water supply. No developer or contractor will care because it is an after market cost.
The non-combustible house was a neat idea. Asks those builders how much that would cost. Bet you would have a sprinkler system instead.
Posted: 2:43 pm on August 17th
Posted: 2:20 pm on August 17th
The purpose of most fire safety codes is to either eliminate the cause of fire or to give occupants adequate time to escape a burning structure. In a multi-story structure or a large structure that may be unfamiliar to the occupants (hotel, for example) it may take as long as 1/2 hour or more to evacuate a few hundred people. A single family residence, on the other hand, can be evacuated in 30 seconds. Keep in mind that a single family residence has multiple exits including the doorways as well as an egress window in every bedroom. Large commercial structures may have only 2 exits per floor.
A fire sprinkler system does nothing to prevent a fire from starting, but is intended to keep the fire from spreading and possibly extinguish a small fire. There simply is not enough water pressure to extinguish a fire in rural areas on a well nor in most urban areas where the water service to the house is only a 1" or 1 1/2" line coming off a 4" water main.
The risk of freezing pipes is a "major" concern. I will not allow water lines in attics on my projects because they will and do freeze in my moderately cold climate. If sprinkler heads are installed in the ceilings below unheated attics, the cost of these systems will have to be increased for additional insulation and possible construction of false ceilings where piping can be protected from freezing.
The increased cost of construction is no minor problem. Over the years, I have watched the cost of construction increase incrementally due to updated building codes. Have these codes saved lives? Undoubtedly they have, but at what cost. How many people are locked out of home ownership because structures are too expensive? Adding, yet again, to the cost due to building code requirements will lock out that many more people from owning a home.
Are there better and more cost effective ways of achieving the safety goals at less cost? To me the answer is "yes" and with a two fold approach. First, concentrate on fire prevention and, second concentrate on warning systems. Both of these strategies are already in place and simply need some tweaking, especially in older homes where the risk of fire is greater. For example, drywall is a great fire suppresser. Why not require drywall backing behind all flammable interior finishes, such as wood paneling. How many times is wood paneling installed directly to rafters or stud walls? Also, increase the numbers of fire and smoke alarms in a house to include "uninhabitable attics" and crawl spaces. These systems, when hard wired with a backup battery, are very effective at warning occupants to evacuate in time and, when they are accidentally activated, they do not cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage.
These are just a couple of ideas and I am sure there are many more. When we consider saving lives, we should not jump to the conclusion that spending more money will be the most effective way to solve the problem. There are many common sense approaches to saving lives and most of these are much more cost effective and maintenance free over the long haul.
Posted: 1:47 pm on August 17th
In addition, if the system is inline run with 1" pipe, there will not be sufficient water flow when a single faucet(especially the one at the end of the line) is open to attempt to keep the system free of sediment and other things settling and grow in the pipes. As most faucets are only plumbed for 1/2" lines, ie. only 25% of the flow capacity of the supply line. So why bother running the 1" lines, they'll fill up to nearly 1/2" ID in 15-20 years anyway. I've just worked in a few older homes where the supply lines were 3/4" and 1" copper and teed off to 1/2" and 3/8" appliances. The lines were nearly full of sediment and the homes were built in the 70's. (the homeowner was complaining of low water flow)
Posted: 1:39 pm on August 17th
This new code will save lives, no doubt. I think we should focus our energy on questioning the many code requirements that do NOT help anybody, unless it's certain specialized subcontractors who have attached to the increasingly Byzantine requirements like leeches.
I'm afraid the biggest beneficiaries of this and many other regulations are the insurance companies, who lobby the IRC continually. In my calculations, the costs of sprinkling a house take 20 YEARS to amortize with fire-insurance savings, meaning that sprinklers are a huge profit-maker for the insurance industry.
Posted: 1:10 pm on August 17th
Smoke detectors alarm much sooner than sprinklers activate. Will sprinklers reduce the battery changes with a false sense of security? Does the code require hard wired battery backed up smoke detectors along with the sprinkler system?
Will sprinklers activate soon enough to save lives in a fire that is very smokey, but not large, and the smoke is toxic due to what is burning? What if the smoke comes from a fire in a non sprinklered area?
Is there a dedicated shut off in a standardized location that the fire dept. or others can use once they verify that doing so is OK? I'm thinking about water damage here.
Will water damage become a big enough issue to negate any insurance cost savings? Will it raise insurance costs in the future?
If you don't have a security system that dials someone, what happens when a small fire breaks out, is extinguished, but the sprinklers keep running until you get back from vacation?
Not everyone keeps house in a way that would allow sprinklers to effectively do their job. What then?
If you have a grease fire in the kitchen and you get the lid on the pan less soon than you'd like, will you still get drenched when the plume of hot air hits the sprinkler?
Lastly, hearing that lobby$$$ are involved rather than an argument based only on merit is cause for serious concern. That's a big red flag for me. Thanks to all.
Posted: 1:09 pm on August 17th
I'm wondering what the long term outlook would be for a framed residential structure over say the next 50-100 years. What is the statistical likelihood that it would be involved in a fire versus what is the statistical likelihood that, if it had sprinklers, it would be involved in a sprinkler failure (and how many failures over that time span).
While I think the $2,000 cost per system to install is grossly understated (remember, you have to count more than just the pipe going in) I still take no issue with the initial install. You see, the majority of the work that I do is on very old houses, so I guess I'm more sensitive to how systems age over time. I'm certainly no big fan of galvanized pipe, and definitely not galvy that doesn't get flushed regularly. I'd suppose that you could get one of these systems made up with copper pipe and brass fittings, but there goes your $2,000 budget for certain.
As someone else referenced, the government websites:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/residential.shtm
points out that the most likely cause of fire is going to be cooking (27%) but the greatest number of fatalities come from Arson (12%, followed by: Smoking 8%, Open Flame/Ember (fireplace?) 6%, and Other Heat/Spark 5%). In terms of fatalities, only 2% are attributable to Cooking, so while Cooking causes the biggest number of fires, they are fires that are readily survivable.
It seems like, perhaps, the fatal fires are ones that happen when folks are asleep (ignoring of course the leading cause of fatalities: Arson). So in something like that sprinklers and smoke alarms are going to make a big difference. Also, at least with the number 2 cause, smoking, these fires caused by behavior (smoking) and tightening up building standards won't prevent the cause. So again, sprinklers, fireproof materials and all should help.
In terms of loss of life, this is a problem that takes 3,000 lives each year. Sometimes more, sometimes less. Not to minimize things, but this number pales in comparison to traffic deaths (35,000) and gun deaths (35,000) both of which are also very resistant to legislative protection of any sort. The other observation that I would make is that there is such a diverse collection of fire causes (3% electrical, 3% heating, etc.) that it's going to be very hard to affect these fatality numbers meaningfully so instead of stopping them before they start, the solution is to fight them after they've begun.
I suppose we won't know the answer regarding statistics on property protection until 30 or 40 years have passed and we've had to live with and maintain these systems. You can bet that the insurance companies are going to be the first to give us a definitive, capitalist answer. If the cost to repair homes damaged by accidental discharge of a system (does "mold and mildew" ring a bell with anyone here?) starts to outweigh the cost of buildings lost to fire you're actually going to see a higher cost to insurance premiums for houses with systems.
Posted: 1:08 pm on August 17th
State Farm must have some data that sprinklers reduce fire damage to a home -- insurance companies don't reduce rates to be "nice guys".
As a homeowner in So Calif (non-fire prone region), I wiold give serious consideration to sprinklers if I was building a new home. Life safety aside, I'd rather deal with water damage than smoke & fire damage.
Posted: 12:58 pm on August 17th
Have a good day.
Dennis
Posted: 12:41 pm on August 17th
My niece takes care of a handicap person that needs 24hr. care. He cannot get out of bed without help, much less get out of the house during a fire. Are these the "stupid" people you are referring to? Mike blamed the fireman, the people who probably have run into buildings on fire a few more times than most builders opposing this change.
For the broken off sprinkler heads, they make pop out type that are recessed and are very clean looking. So get off the Kool-Aid drinking socialism soap box and build something better and safer for the people buying the houses remember them your customer.
Posted: 11:59 am on August 17th
You're right that sprinkler lines start at 3/4-in., but are typically 1-in. pipe. Feed lines are reduced from there, typically to a manifold that tees from the sprinkler loop to feed a group of fixtures.
I'm not sure what the answer is regarding your 'wet wall' plumbing approach. If you are set on plumbing the house the way you describe then you'd have to use a standalone sprinkler system. That does mean a separate set of pipes.
Posted: 11:54 am on August 17th
The ICC is not making law, and they are not forcing anything on anybody. They simply provide a model code which state and local governments are free to adopt in toto or in part or not at all. The changes they make to the code are extensively reviewed. If you want to be part of that process, join the ICC. It doesn't cost much.
To me the code is about safety, and we are safer because of it. If everyone did the right thing, we wouldn't need the code or laws for that matter. But we know how well that works.
Posted: 11:48 am on August 17th
Due to the type of construction and cost of tearing it down, families will likely be in this house for hundreds of years - like the houses in Europe. That is a lot of savings, security, and future-proofing, for a few dollars a foot. I sleep very well at night.
Posted: 11:41 am on August 17th
Several fire programs have shown the mock-up of a living room built according to residential codes and finished and furnished with readily available and legal products. A fire started in a trash can by a lit cigarette developed to consume the entire room in less than 30 seconds.
If homes were constructed of non-combustible materials and finished and furnished with materials having a flame spread rating of no more than 50 and smoke development of less than 450, sprinklers would be moot.
Posted: 11:40 am on August 17th
Linda
Posted: 11:34 am on August 17th
You note that the sprinklers are in-line between supply and fixture and not a separate branch. How does that work? I configure my home designs for interior 'wet walls.' Very short supply runs to an intermediate manifold with short runs to fixtures. No pipes go overhead in rooms. In order to put sprinklers high on walls or the ceilings of rooms, I would have to run separate lines.
And according to the requirements of the sprinkler code, we can forget about 1/2 inch supply pipes. Minimum allowable size is 3/4 inch (P2904.6) and will likely jump to 1 inch when you do a sizing calculation following NFPA 13D or the IRC's prescriptive method.
Posted: 11:26 am on August 17th
Posted: 11:16 am on August 17th
Posted: 11:00 am on August 17th
Posted: 10:55 am on August 17th
Posted: 10:25 am on August 17th
Fire departments are going to be fewer, farther apart, and more expensive in the future.
Residential sprinklers are a special class. They are not a prone to the extensive water damage seen in businesses. We will learn to live with them and leave them alone.
As the population gets older, more lives will be saved.
Negative:
As long as the homeowner can shut them off, they will.
New technology to reduce fires in kitchens will be hampered by laws requiring sprinklers and not recognizing the new technology.
(Example: Municipalities which restrict the size of water meters limiting flow to fire sprinklers.)
Municipalities will want to charge license fees for something that will save lives and money. Send them a tea bag and vote them out if they don't get the message.
Posted: 10:03 am on August 17th
Posted: 9:23 am on August 17th
I am building a 4400-sq ft earth-sheltered house entirely out of concrete. While I agree that the contents could burn, that would be unlikely to cause my demise. Having to install sprinklers would be a needless cost and a waste of resources.
Posted: 9:20 am on August 17th
Posted: 9:13 am on August 17th
Is there any cause for concern with stagnating water in a potable supply pipe style residential systems?
Commercial sprinkler systems are isolated from potable water with backflow preventors, but residential systems usually have sprinkler heads on cold water supplies. If those pipes are 'T'd off and dead end at a sprinkler then the water sits there for years and years and years.
Posted: 8:52 am on August 17th
I have been involved with the construction of many commercial buildings and for higher education where the sprinkler pipes are in insulated spaces, from Oregon to Minnesota to Missouri to Georgia. I have had them freeze and break in NUMEROUS instances. The resultant mess is unbelieveable. The skanky water that has been sitting in the pipes, sometimes for years, is incredible. The mess that is created is worse than a fire.
Moreover, I have never had them discharge for a fire, and have spent millions of dollars installing them. Not that I would build a commerical/educational building without them, due to the heavy occupant load and multiple stores, but you need to know that they really do freeze and not blithly dismiss the objection.
Second, I have had the heads broken off more times than I can count. When this happens the mess is, again, incredible. And yes it does happen.
In a residential application, I would object to them, not from a cost standpoint, but because I think the cost is not an effective use of a budget. If occupant protection is the goal, I would put the money into more effective smoke/carbon monoxide alarms, better fireproofing of materials (including cedar shakes and siding), portable fire extinguishers (and their proper use), and community education for fire prevention and responding to a fire.
Don't be so quick to dismiss reader concerns. Healthy discussion is good, for both sides of an issue. It's what we expect from Fine Homebuilding.
Posted: 8:16 am on August 17th
Posted: 8:12 am on August 17th
Freezing pipes in heated houses are a reality and not a "lame arguement". They freeze in the basements of heated homes and they freeze in homes without power.
As for accidental discharge, at work we have annual accidental discharges, from people accidentally hitting the sprinkler hears with things. Kids, stuff, houses, and sprinklers. Now there's a bad combination.
Well water (or city). I don't know many places where you can get 26GPM flow in a residental water system. Additionally you can ask any plumber this question. What size pipe do I need for 26GPM. 1/2" won't do it at all. 3/4" may achieve more than 23GPM over 100psig! (I don't want that much pressure in my plumbing. So the sprinklers will need to be piped with 1" tubing (which may achieve 37GPM at 100psig). I don't know how many people have priced pipe lately, but each size up almost doubles the cost. If the 3/4" is $15/length then the 1" stuff will be ~$25. That's going to be a lot more additional cost than is calculated here.
Additionally, the two most common fires are started from open flame or electrical. In the the case of the electrical fire, chances are you won't have power, and therefore won't have a well pump. I recently had my pressure tank changed out and up sized (from 40 to 80 gallon). If I need 26GPM for 10 minutes, that 260 gallons of water to be stored. Damn! That's one BIG tank to have in my basement!
I like the idea of regulation, but someone needs to figure out just how to implement it reliably, safely, and cost effectively in a residential setting. Otherwise it a lot of money that we have to spend for something that won't be worth a penny.
Posted: 8:10 am on August 17th
I have monitored burglar / Smoke / Fire / CO alarm systems installed in every house I build and remodel. A complete wired system costs between $500 - $1000 and will handle up to a 3500 sf house. Monitoring costs $200 - $300 per year.
When a smoke, heat or CO detector goes off and no one is home, the fire dept is there in minutes.
Posted: 8:09 am on August 17th
The enormous number I calculated ($1.1 Billion) surprised me. If we factor in major remodels which will also fall under the sprinkler requirement, then the price tag goes up even further.
I couldn't find any stats through federal gov nor NFPA that correlates year of home construction and property damage cost in event of fire. That would be the only way we could determine how 1.1 Billion spent on sprinklers might impact the 7.5 Billion in losses.
I suspect there will be very little impact.
I still think the $ is best spent on smoke detectors - It's the only way we can address older homes that do and will continue to be the largest percentage of dwellings in the country.
Posted: 7:59 am on August 17th
We are seeing a disturbing trend in ICC, whereas they have moved from a primary purpose of specifying and unifying installation and materials to eliminate unsafe and improper practices, to dictating energy policy in this country, and now possibly to requiring systems in new homes, bypassing local and state governments, much less federal laws and due process. We thought they had over-reached their position when they dictated energy policy by requiring minimum insulation and energy standards, something normally reserved for a federal agency. Now, ICC< without following channels of local, state and federal lawmaking, have dictated a huge change that will have financial implications for many, many years.
No one disputes that saving lives is important, but we also have to acknowledge that our current system of lawmaking allows for a thorough examination of potential "laws" in order to allow for not only cost analysis, but also for unintended consquences of each law. Some "life-saving" proposals result in unintended consequences.
In our area of the country, new home prices start at under $100,000, so a $2,500 price tag is actually 2 1/2%. Insurance savings will translate into a payback of about 20 years. To suggest that insurance discounts will promptly pay for the system is just not likely. A much better investment would be to use those 2 1/2 points to buy down the interest rate. How many are killed in house fires inside, oh, let's say, 10 yr old homes? Anyone know?
But, initial construction costs are not my concern. We've seen numerous times where power has been out in neighborhoods for extended periods of time. Often, a house will not freeze the plumbing during a short power outage, because of the ability to hold the heat. However, if the sprinkler lines are in the attic, freezing is most CERTAINLY an issue, ESPECIALLY in the new, well insulated houses. Why in the world are we required to completely insulated the flue and drain pipes on 90%+ furnaces where they are exposed to attic temperatures if freezing were NOT an issue?????? The use of laminated beams and TJI's also limit routing of lines, often requiring that the penetration be at least a couple of inches above the sheetrock line of a ceiling. This is my experience in Oklahoma. What about northern climates?
As the contractor, what is MY liability for failure of a sprinkler head or unintended discharge of water? We had one, count-em, ONE large claim against our company for a city sewer backup, on a sewer service, one that was inspected and approved as installed. The homeowners were out of town for two weeks so the house "percolated" for that entire time. The claim, when finally settled, was for almost $100,000, (most of which was paid by our insurance company)and although we paid many times over that in premiums through the years with that company, they refused to renew us upon expiration of our liability policy, forcing us to shop insurnace coverage with a recent large claim on our record. We may see discounts on homeowner's policies, but in the long run, what will happen to ours?
What if, during construction, another contractor nicks one of our pex lines? Who will pay when that line blows out? What if a sprinkler head FAILS to open when it should? Who will be liable? We know that smoke detectors save lives, without large upfront costs and they are inexpensive to replace. Will homeowners become so dependant on the belief that a sprinkler system will save them that they will quit checking batteries and keeping fire extinquishers in the kitchen? Most kitchen fires are grease fires? Will they assume that a water sprinkler system in their home will save them? How many will die of smoke inhalation because they didn't check their smoke detectors, and a smoldering fire didn't build the heat to activate a sprinkler head?
So many of our code requirements are really to save dumb people from hurting themselves. . . raising water heaters, using pipes to provide combustion air to water heater closets. . all designed to keep people from doing dumb things like sealing up their water heater closet or storage or spillage of fuel near the water heater. Numerous warnings did NOT keep this from happening, so we changed the code. Will sprinkler systems increase smoke related deaths because homeowners are basically dumb and lazy?
Who knows. That's the point. Local, state, and federal legislation is subjected to public scrutiny and review, with all aspects examined and challenged, allowing input from the general public, along with local and national professionals. To suggest that rules passed at ICC conferences are subject to the same open scrutiny is simply not realistic. This "rule" needed true open review and debate before being put into place. IMHO
Posted: 7:50 am on August 17th
Posted: 7:43 am on August 17th
Posted: 7:11 am on August 17th
And who is the IRC? Their slogan is "People Helping People Build A Safer World". What a bunch of bunk!! It's the New World Order is what it is. And their m.o. is to make their insidious power grabs appear as though they are for your own good and safety. Anyone ever heard of Agenda 21? Look it up on the net. It's the U.N.'s plan to regulate every square inch of this planet. They've got codes for everything. Now what I want to know is, when did the U.S. give up its sovereignty to the New World Order? Did We The People ever vote on that issue? And tell me how the I.R.C. is applying its mandates to huts across Africa. And you mean to tell me people here in the States are actually taking any of this seriously? It's all a big hoax to take away people's property rights, plain & simple. WAKE UP, AMERICA!
Watch this vid to find out what's really going on:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
Posted: 5:45 am on August 17th
I understand that there was a proposal to mandate sprinkler systems in the Chicago area and a cost benefit study was done, the result of the study was the total cost did not warrant the the mandate.
I hear people say the cost is insignificant , but every added 1,000 dollar cost take home ownership out of the picture for someone.
I can think there are many areas where more lives are lost per 1000 population and yet I don't see mandated proposals for behavior changes in those areas.
As for as new homes being built are using short cuts and lower construction standard than those built 30 or 40 years ago, you should take a look at the code changes in that period of time. I can only remember on 1 home suffering damage by fire of the hundreds of homes that I have built and that was caused by the homeowner putting ashes from the fire place in a waste basket.
Posted: 3:25 pm on August 16th
If my house burns, what does it cost the local government or fire deparment.(sic)
It cost the firefighters 115 deaths last year. Eighty percent of firefighters are volunteers, your friends and neighbors. You may think that this is an acceptable cost, I think you sell their lives too cheap.
Firefighters know that the newer the building, the greater the risk. New buildings are built lighter of more combustible materials that burn faster. Builders are cutting the cost of building at the risk of the occupants and firefighters. Is it too much to ask you to mitigate the risk by extending the biggest lifesaver in the history of fire protection to our homes?
(Yes, its true, only one time have two people been killed in a sprinklered occupancy since the establishment of the NFPA in 1898.)
Yes, I am one of those volunteer firefighters that provide fire protection for most of our country.
Posted: 10:43 am on August 16th
The underlying issue and funding comes from insurance companies. The insurance companies are masters of capitalism and profit (at my expense..I may add). They have every reason to promote in home sprinklers. Only a fool would think insurance will decline even a token amount oon homes with sprinklers, but the insurance companies losses will profoundly fall. Imagine, I'll reduce your insurance cost, if you pay $5000 for sprinklers... great...$80 year savings. BUT, where then is a fire, the insuarnce company reudces there average claim $50,000. Smart.
I dont' need any idiot politican or activist to protect me. The issue of cost only relates to the insurance company. If my house burns, what does it cost the local government or fire deparment. A service call? So we should have 1 million home owners in my city pay $500M so the govenrment wont have to have as many employees? So the insurance companies can increase there profit 11 percent?
Mind your own business and leave people to manage there own risk. The insurance company will mitigate there risk and even now charges more when circumstances warrant.
Posted: 7:14 am on August 16th
I'm wondering how that enormous figure you calulated will impact the 7.5 billion dollars lost in residential fires each year. Any thoughts?
I also wonder how many people were up in arms when grounded outlets were added to the code.
Posted: 11:46 am on August 14th
Thanks for your post.
So the pipes in the sprinkler system froze, but not the plumbing? Any idea what materials were used for the piping of each? Just curious.
Posted: 11:42 am on August 14th
Posted: 11:36 am on August 14th
A well constructed house with smoke detectors and proper means of egress is very safe. Sprinklers are great - let's just leave the decision where it belongs; between the homeowner and the builder.
Posted: 7:03 am on August 14th
Posted: 2:38 am on August 14th
Posted: 8:29 pm on August 13th
Homes built since the '70's have integrated hardwired smoke detectors and many states now require CO detectors and heat detectors as well. I believe all states require homes built before hardwired smoke detector requirements must be retrofit with battery operated detectors verified at time of resale.
Smoke, CO and heat detectors alert occupants far earlier than sprinklers activate. According to NFPA stats, prior to smoke detector requirements in new AND EXISTING homes there were 10,000 to 15,000 home fire related deaths in the US each year. Recent stats have the number at 300 - 400 per year. Smoke detectors save lives - lots of lives.
It will cost $1,125,000,000 to install sprinkler systems in half a million new homes built each year based on the $2250 figure Chris notes above for a 1500 sf (small) home.
With the fact that older homes burn much more frequently than new homes in mind, how many of those 300 - 400 lives will be saved by installing sprinklers in newly constructed homes?
Pay close attention next time you hear of a tragic house fire where people lose their lives. Note the age of the home and more importantly, did the home have working smoke detectors. Often reporters make note when there were no detectors or non-functioning ones.
Instead of requiring sprinkler systems in new home I propose a more practical use for the money. State fire marshals should impose a fee based on the square footage of the new home along the lines of the anticipated cost of a new sprinkler system - $1.50/sf. Put those funds in a locked account to keep politicians away. Use the money to:
1-Install free smoke and CO detectors in old homes and
2-Conduct annual inspections of EVERY house. (you can bet people will change detector batteries before the inspector shows up knowing they'll be charged a hefty reinspection fee)
Many states have motor vehicle inspection requirements to ensure drivers and passengers are safe - Why not home inspections?
Posted: 7:57 am on August 13th
The few relatively new homes that I've heard of burning locally were attributed to 3 causes. Attached garages (combustibles stored ignited), Natural Gas (backhoe pulling a line), and Arson.
I'm sure there'd be pushback to forcing owners of older homes to pay for sprinklers but there is a president here in RI. Several towns have begun requiring that homes with cesspools either hook up to sewers or have new modern septic systems installed. Average cost for sewer hookup= $4000 plus $700/year; new septic system = $20,000. Owners of old homes complain loudly but the measures haven't been struck down in court.
So let's get the code amended to require old homes be sprinkled.
Posted: 7:06 am on August 13th
The I codes are supposed to be 'consensus' codes where all stakeholders have a seat at the table. I was disappointed to discover that 'consensus' meant 'lobby $$$.'
Posted: 6:46 am on August 13th
Posted: 6:40 am on August 13th
Posted: 12:29 am on August 13th
The overall cost is nothing when rolled into a $300K house, sprinklers nowadays are very concealable, and I would imagine that sprinkler systems will put a nice dent in home insurance premiums.
Posted: 9:28 am on August 12th
Posted: 4:45 pm on August 11th
And I'm with you, CB. Can't roll the flat screen tv into your mortgage. And you don't get a break on your homeowners insurance for one either. But you do if you have a fire sprinkler system...5-15%.
One issue that came up in my research is excessive tap fees. Some municipalities are taking advantage of this mandate by charging commercial rates for sprinklered homes that often require a larger tap size and/or charging a 'standby fee'. A 'standby fee' for a service you're already paying for? Makes about as much sense as...oh, I can't think of anything snappy. The fee has been nixed by legislation in some states(I think NJ is one).
Posted: 4:23 pm on August 11th
You're likely right that those opposed to mandatory fire sprinklers are actually opposed to the addition costs of building a house. There is also a good chance that they are simply opposed to anything "mandated."
Given home fire sprinkler’s established safety record, and the simplicity of the multi-purposed systems you describe in the story (sprinkler water and potable water in one), I voted "Absolutely."
I would also be willing to bet that if you looked more closely into the range in costs, and maybe you have, that you would find they are lower in markets where installations are more common and more expensive where installations are rare. In which case, if sprinklers become required in more areas, costs will drop.
I know that unreasonable codes can be problematic for builders and can drive up construction costs unnecessarily, but if they are in fact written for homeowner’s safety, this one seems more than reasonable.
Posted: 4:00 pm on August 11th
Posted: 3:45 pm on August 11th
You must be logged in to post comments. Log in.