From today’s WSJ…
Mandating Fire Sprinklers for the Home
Alberta Davidson woke up at 5 a.m. one morning last March to a blaring alarm. Her garage was on fire.
But it wasn’t her smoke detector that had gone off. Rather, the alarm was notifying her that the fire sprinklers in her garage had activated. The sprinklers helped keep the fire from spreading to the interior of her house in Fallbrook, Calif., where sprinklers are mandatory in new homes.
“Fire sprinklers really saved my home and saved my life,” says Ms. Davidson, 48. “Prior to the incident, we took them for granted.”
As concern over residential fire deaths grows, home sprinklers are becoming more widespread and could soon be mandatory in new homes across the country. As early as this weekend, the International Code Council, which sets the residential building code used in 46 states either at the state or local level, will vote on code changes that would make sprinklers mandatory in new one-family and two-family homes. Meanwhile, a growing number of communities in states ranging from California to Maryland are already requiring sprinklers in new homes and, in some cases, in homes that undergo significant enlargements.
The Residential Fire Safety Institute, a Maple Grove, Minn.-based nonprofit that promotes fire safety, says it has a record of 400 counties and cities that have passed ordinances requiring sprinklers. Eight years ago, that number was only 200, says Roy Marshall, the organization’s director. He adds that “most of the movement has happened in the last two or three years.”
Supporters of mandatory sprinklers say they help extend the amount of time residents have to get out of the house during a fire by preventing flashover, which occurs when the temperature in a room reaches a point where all combustible materials burst into flames. In many cases, they put out smaller house fires altogether, says Gary Keith, vice president of field operations at the Quincy, Mass.-based National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit that sets recommended fire-safety standards.
That has spurred cities like University Park, Texas, where homes are generally two stories and built in close proximity to each other, to take action. The City Council there passed an ordinance last January, requiring sprinklers in new homes and homes that are 3,000 square feet that undergo an addition of 1,000 square feet or more. Mayor James H. Holmes III says that in University Park, sprinkler installation costs $10,000 to $15,000 for most homes.
Many communities are also making sprinklers mandatory because of budget reasons, says Lawrence McKenna, fire program specialist at the Washington-based U.S. Fire Administration. Fewer people are volunteering to be firefighters these days. Many cities and counties are finding that, by requiring sprinklers, they can avoid expanding their fire departments or building costly new fire stations.
But the idea of requiring sprinklers in single-family homes nationwide has drawn heated opposition from builders, who say that sprinklers increase costs and require some maintenance by the homeowner. “While NAHB is not against residential sprinklers as an option for home owners, there is not enough evidence in making these mandatory,” says Steve Orlowski, program manager at the National Association of Home Builders in Washington.
Supporters of sprinkler ordinances point to a study by Scottsdale, Ariz., which made sprinklers mandatory in 1985. Fifteen years later, the average fire loss per single-family home with sprinklers was only $2,166, compared with an average loss of $45,019 in single-family homes without them. In single-family homes, one or two sprinkler heads controlled or extinguished fires 88% of the time.
Dispelling Myths
Fire-safety officials and local officials in jurisdictions where sprinklers are mandatory are quick to dispel myths about sprinklers. One popular misconception is that when one sprinkler goes off, they all do. “What folks don’t understand is that these sprinkler systems that are installed in today’s homes only go off where the heat activates them,” says Mayor Holmes of University Park. Also, having sprinklers doesn’t have to mar your decor. Many models of sprinklers are designed to blend in with your ceiling.
Sprinklers are usually installed in all occupied spaces, including bedrooms, kitchens, living rooms and large bathrooms. One sprinkler is designed to cover about 400 square feet, says NFPA’s Mr. Keith, who is also chairman of the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition, a nonprofit that promotes fire-sprinkler education.
Sprinklers rarely go off by accident, Mr. Keith says. They are not activated by smoke — so if you burn something in the kitchen but see smoke and no flames, the sprinklers won’t go off. To turn off the sprinklers, you have to either turn off the sprinkler control valve or the main water supply in your home.
Residents who have been through house fires say, though, that they were shocked by the amount of water that filled their homes when their sprinkler systems activated. (A typical sprinkler emits 15 to 20 gallons of water per minute.) “It was like a hurricane,” says James Bond, 36, a project manager at a remodeling company who had a house fire last New Year’s Eve. A candle that was lit for an earlier party melted and caught the back of his couch on fire.
The sprinkler helped to contain the fire so that Mr. Bond’s guests could lift the couch and throw it outside. The house had $25,000 worth of water damage, but “I’d rather have that type of damage than have the house catch on fire,” says Mr. Bond, of Clarksburg, Md.
Another concern for homeowners and builders is the cost of installing a sprinkler, which can vary depending on the community. According to a study of 10 communities in the U.S. and Canada released last week by the Fire Protection Research Foundation in Quincy, Mass., the average cost of sprinkler systems is $1.61 per square foot of space to be covered by the system.
Beyond the initial cost, fire-safety officials and sprinkler manufacturers say maintenance is simple. In most cases, homeowners should turn on the water-flow test valve on the sprinkler system and make sure it is working once a year, says NFPA’s Mr. Keith. Typically, there is a discharge point at the end of the system where the water should flow outside. They should also visually check the sprinkler heads to make sure nothing is obstructing them. Sprinklers are designed to last decades, but NFPA recommends having your sprinklers inspected by a contractor after 20 years.
Extra Costs
There are cases where extra costs and maintenance are involved for homeowners. For instance, homeowners who receive their water from private wells in most cases have to purchase an additional pump and tank — which can cost a couple of thousand dollars — that holds water to be dispensed through the sprinkler system. And some communities require homeowners to have backflow preventers — which keep water used by the sprinkler system from mixing with the rest of the water supply in your home. These devices cost about $80 to $100, says William Barnard, Maryland State Fire Marshall. And water utilities may require homeowners to have the backflow preventers inspected once a year for a fee of about $50, he says.
There is a financial benefit to sprinklers, too: Homeowners who have them can in most cases get a discount on homeowners insurance. According to the Fire Protection Research Foundation’s study, insurers give an average premium discount of 7%.
Sandi Stump, 54, an insurance saleswoman from Darnestown, Md., got a 5% discount on her annual premium from her insurance provider when she moved into a new home with sprinklers in 2004. While the cost saving wasn’t huge, she says it was a nice perk.
Insurers also generally cover any water damage resulting from sprinklers going off during a fire. In 2006, Ms. Stump came home to a house fire that resulted in about $200,000 worth of damage — mostly from water. Her insurance company covered the cost.
Replies
Required here by law in some counties and on some houses depending on size and location relative to fire fighting resources .
Hmmm, so now the water causes all the damage instead of the fire.
I wonder how the poor people are going to afford a place to live when they start requiring elevators and helicopter pads.
Maybe they should just require that every component in the house is made of concrete....concrete walls, roofs, beds, couches. Nothing would burn.
Maybe they should just require that every component in the house is made of concrete....concrete walls, roofs, beds, couches.
Sorta sounds like jail to me!
I think the sprinkler system is great, if thats what you want. BUT I sure as hell dont want to see them mandated, to much of that BS now.
Doug
ditto.
I agree. I think they are a good idea but I don't want to see them universally mandated.
I've got them in a basement of a building I own. There is no public access, basically I'm the only one going there. Never the less there are cards that I'm supposed to initial monthly to verify that the shut off valves (which are padlocked open) are still in the on position. The installer seemed annoyed when I suggested that maybe this was a legal necessity but overkill. The fire inspector said I should bring in certified professionals at least yearly to certify that the valves were on, and the smoke detectors and pull stations were working.
More money spent, more time wasted. Meanwhile we hear the constant refrain "we need more affordable housing".
Edited 9/21/2008 1:01 am ET by sisyphus
Edited 9/21/2008 1:02 am ET by sisyphus
I think residential sprinkler systems are a good idea.
They do not add much cost to the home- unless one chooses fancy sprinkler heads.
The inspections are needed to ensure that the systems are capable of doing their job.
While you may be able to inspect your own systems, the fact remains that the average homeowner is likely not able to do so.
The only major downfall I see is the possibility for water damage from a failed component or carelessness/stupidity.
Most customers/builders will not choose them due to the extra cost- but they will spring for the stainless and granite kitchen.
Most customers/builders will not choose them due to the extra cost- but they will spring for the stainless and granite kitchen.
Shouldnt that be their choice weather or not they want to spend their money on the kitchen as opposed to the sprinkler system?
Given the choice I'm probably one that would opt to use the money on other things, I think having earned that money I should be able to decide for myself.
Doug
The argument can be made that some make poor decisions. Just because someone can choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet doesn't make that a good decision, and as long as *my* insurance rates are impacted by someone plastering their brains on the highway when injuries may have been reduced with a helmet, then I am in favor of laws that prevent those decisions.
There are also cheaply built homes with the money spent on the chrome plating to entice buyers and profits, instead of delivering a quality product.
A sprinkler system is like insurance. You spend money on it, hoping to never need it... but if the time ever comes, then it is money well spent.
It is difficult to retrofit a sprinkler system to existing construction without major work, or at a lower cost than doing it when the house is built. I suspect that very few people would just decide one day to retrofit a sprinkler system, unless required to do so during a major remodel.
Things like appliances can be upgraded or refreshed relatively easily compared to a sprinkler retrofit.
I can't think of a logical reason not to require residential sprinkler systems in new construction.
The argument can be made that some make poor decisions.
I do not see putting in a fancy kitchen over a sprinkler system a poor decision. I see it as a choice, one that we should be able to make on our own.
With all due respect, who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell someone that they should spend their money on a sprinkler system over say some high end appliances?
I dont like the mandating of things like this. I believe that it should be left to the individual to decide if they want it. We cant mandate everything that will help people/save lives, its just not possible. Plus where does it all stop?
BTW, I dont like the helmet law either. I dont ride motorcycles anymore but I always felt it should be my choice to wear a helmet if I wanted one.
Doug
I think they should mandate fire extinguisher systems on cars and motorcyles. Motorcylces should have training wheels to cut down on bikes sliding sideways and the riders getting their knees scraped.Mobile homes should have a gps system built into them so they can drive themselves to the nearest fire station if a fire starts in them. All houses on slabs should have tornado rooms. Houses with basements should have elevators with generator systems. I got's lot more good ideas. I'm sure when we are done, only the uber rich will be able to afford a crackerbox.
All that is funny but I'd bet if you and I live long enough and the current trend to protect mankind from every conceivable problem continues we'll see it happen!
Doug
There is the point that it's much cheaper to install sprinklers in a home under construction than to retrofit. Kind of like how it's cheaper to design a car for crash resistance than to retrofit. If the feature is not required then it becomes effectively unavailable to everyone, since very few builders will add the feature on spec.I can't see requiring sprinklers in existing structures, unless the structure is being taken back to bare studs anyway.I'd also like to see the financials verified.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
I do not see putting in a fancy kitchen over a sprinkler system a poor decision. I see it as a choice, one that we should be able to make on our own.
Can you use that same arguement to not install AFCI breakers?
That is a mandated change that adds cost and gives you no choice.
What's the dif?
See my post to Danski, lets mandate everything good, hell we all know its whats best for us.
Doug
Doug, I'm not disagreeing with you, so much as pointing out that we get rolled up in mandates all the time. They are called building codes, plumbing codes, electrical codes and HVAC codes. Those code change every few years and although we grouse about them, and we comply.
We can huff and puff untill we are blue in the face. If residential sprinkler systems become part of a code, be it local or IRC, we will just comply and pass the cost along.
I do not see putting in a fancy kitchen over a sprinkler system a poor decision. I see it as a choice, one that we should be able to make on our own.
With all due respect, who are you, or anybody else for that matter, to tell someone that they should spend their money on a sprinkler system over say some high end appliances?
Who am I?
I am a customer that the insurance companies pass costs to.
If helmet laws will save me a few bucks due to injury reductions, I am all for it.
If anti-smoking laws keep people healthier, I am all for it.
If sprinkler requirements reduce losses due to fire, I am all for it.
The only argument that I ever hear against sprinkler systems is that they cost money.
People always seem to have money for the gas guzzling SUV, shiny kitchen, flat panel TV, home theater, etc.
If the added cost of a sprinkler system actually kept someone from buying a basic home, then that is bad... but that will never happen. The added cost is something like 1.5% at the $200,000/1200 SF level.
Has the cost of airbags or ABS kept people from buying a car? Doubt it, but I bet that inflation and stagnant wages has.
Builders don't like the sprinklers because they can't mark it up 4x like a fireplace, cheap tile or something else that the customer can touch or see.
Homebuyers have the perception that the systems cost big money, and they don't.
I fully support the right of an individual to make a choice.
If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, then I have no problem with that as long as the cost of your helmetless injuries are born soley by you or your estate. Insurance companies should not insure that choice.
Same goes for smokers.
If someone is given a choice to be exempt from a sprinkler system if it is an option, I am ok with that- as long as there is no requirement for fire department services... and they get the bill for any incidents from future owners of that property.
I understand your reasons for the helmet law, the sprinkler mandate and so on and so on, but where does it all stop? I dont like it and that has nothing to do with the lives it will save, the damage that will be minimalized................
Drunk driving kills more lives a year then house fires. I propose that we install breath detectors in ALL cars, make it so that the person driving it has to periodically breath into it, cant have any sober people in the back seat breathing into it for you. The technology is there, why not implement it? Think about how much money that will save you and I in insurance premiums. We all know that those insurance companies will pass on the savings! And the biggest benefit, lives will be saved, a double benefit, hell I cant believe its not in the works as we speak.
You brought up the anti smoking laws, are you aware of how much money is taken in a year in tobacco taxes? Its a boat load, where is that money going to come from when all the anti smoking fanatics get their way and abolish tobacco? Guess what, your going to have to pay more in taxes so its not as cut and dried as just eliminating smoking. I dont smoke, never have but I dont want to take that right away from those that do enjoy it. Hell I drink ice tea, I dont want to see the smoking industry tell me that I have to quite that, regardless of if its killing me or not.
I dont believe for one minute that builders will not be able to profit if they are forced to add sprinklers to a house. Do you think that the auto industry is passing on the cost of the air bag because they have to install them? I'm pretty sure that there is a mark up on that item just as there is on the air conditioner or the CD player. One of, if not the single most common item stolen from a car is the airbags. A lot of money in those things. Someone is profiting from them.
Look I see your point regarding the sprinkler system, I dont agree with the numbers that have been posted regarding the cost of them but I disagree with the mandate to have them installed in houses. Dont agree that they should be only installed in houses larger then 3000 sq ft, or what ever that number that someone posted. Why should only the wealthy get them, why shouldnt everybody be protected. Hell we know whats good for everybody, put them in all houses.
People always seem to have money for the gas guzzling SUV, shiny kitchen, flat panel TV, home theater, etc.
I as well as most other people, work hard for that money that we throw away on gas guzzling suv's, shinny kitchens, flat screen tvs,..............shouldnt we have some say in how we want to spend it?
I just dont like the mandates for anything like this, my opinion.
Doug
I think sprinklers are a good idea too. The question ,for me, is when they should be required and whether or not they provide the most benefits for the $. I find it easier to accept them as a requirement in new construction, or upon change of title, than as an adhoc retrofit.
Personally I think it should be the owner's choice, given decent guidance on making the decision but the way codes are going these days nothing surprises me. We have taken the "100% safe in the worst case scenario" thinking to the extreme in the electrical code. Likelihood of danger seems to have nothing to do with the requirement.
As you say, likelihood of danger seems to be left out. I built an old fashioned 2 story porch and the HO wanted the lower level railings to be the same height as other period railings on the street. The BI wanted them substantially higher (which we did). Meanwhile the city has a paved path along the river with a low stone wall (20" ht?) between pedestrians, cyclists and a 6' drop on to the rocky shore. HUH?
Maybe they should just require that every component in the house is made of concrete....concrete walls, roofs, beds, couches. Nothing would burn.I go alone with that. I think its a great idea for the sprinklers. If it was wide spread then some diy kit could be invented. like slip connector pipe fitting and pvc.
I'm not big on it being a mandate... but Wirsobo has fire rated pex... installs just like normal pex... even on the cheap side i could see it adding 2-3k on a 100k house
p
talk about mandate, I wish they would mandate 300 mph housing within 100 miles of the coast.
"talk about mandate, I wish they would mandate 300 mph housing within 100 miles of the coast."They better mandate seat belts in those houses too. That is really fast for a house to be moving around a neighborhood.
It's that new "bullet" housing -- latest thing in Japan. You don't have a home or apartment anymore, just a strap to hang from. The elite get the seats.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
What about the annual inspections? They start out at $50. Soon, when everyone is hooked they are at $500. Then, the demand for repairs begins and pretty soon the annual repair bills are running in the the tens of thousands and forcing people out of their homes?
Agreed.
A friend of mine had his house on Ohio catch fire. He says the firemen chopping holes in his walls and the water they used to put out the fire did 4 or 5 times the damage the fire did. 5 years ago a candle caught his bedroom on fire. A neighbor called the fire department but he had the fire out by the time they got there. He had a big fight with them in his driveway because wouldn't let them in the house.
a few townships in PA have mandated this already.
we repaired a home that had sprinklers and was hit by lightning in the attic.
no heads up there, not much help.
i would unquestionably put them in my own home, but, i am in the repair business, so i get to see the horror daily.
$10 - 15 K is a big nut to crack. they do without a doubt save lives.
the article shoots itself in the foot with the water damages though.
the homeowner / remodeling contractor that was home for his fire probably got the sprinkler turned off about as quickly as anyone could and still had $25 K of water damage.
the systems have to be looked at as lifesavers mainly.
Supporters of sprinkler ordinances point to a study by Scottsdale, Ariz., which made sprinklers mandatory in 1985. Fifteen years later, the average fire loss per single-family home with sprinklers was only $2,166, compared with an average loss of $45,019 in single-family homes without them. In single-family homes, one or two sprinkler heads controlled or extinguished fires 88% of the time.
Dispelling Myths
Residents who have been through house fires say, though, that they were shocked by the amount of water that filled their homes when their sprinkler systems activated. (A typical sprinkler emits 15 to 20 gallons of water per minute.) "It was like a hurricane," says James Bond, 36, a project manager at a remodeling company who had a house fire last New Year's Eve. A candle that was lit for an earlier party melted and caught the back of his couch on fire.
The sprinkler helped to contain the fire so that Mr. Bond's guests could lift the couch and throw it outside. The house had $25,000 worth of water damage, but "I'd rather have that type of damage than have the house catch on fire," says Mr. Bond, of Clarksburg, Md.
Extra Cost
There is a financial benefit to sprinklers, too: Homeowners who have them can in most cases get a discount on homeowners insurance. According to the Fire Protection Research Foundation's study, insurers give an average premium discount of 7%.
Sandi Stump, 54, an insurance saleswoman from Darnestown, Md., got a 5% discount on her annual premium from her insurance provider when she moved into a new home with sprinklers in 2004. While the cost saving wasn't huge, she says it was a nice perk.
Insurers also generally cover any water damage resulting from sprinklers going off during a fire. In 2006, Ms. Stump came home to a house fire that resulted in about $200,000 worth of damage -- mostly from water. Her insurance company covered the cost.
carpenter in transition
There is (besides the neighboring country I already mentioned) another small rural community near here that has mandated them for every new dwelling . The reason?
The community has a poor water supply and doesn't have enough water supply available to fight more than one fire at a time. It is less expensive to mandate sprinklers than to revamp the entire water system to update the source, and supply system for fire fighting.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I'm all for it. Just not the mandated part.
If I were building new, I'd go for it. But on it's own merits.
Remodeling Contractor just on the other side of the Glass City
I'd like to see a financial analysis. Home fires are quite rare -- a house is far more likely to experience extensive damage from storms, termites, rot, and probably several other theats. And it's not clear that sprinklers greatly increase people safety over a properly maintained smoke alarm system.
Seems like it wouldn't withstand the financial analysis.
DanH
That's my take as well. If we're worried about saving lives shouldn't simple smoke detectors provide that? If we are worried about saving buildings then differant construction techniques could be mandated. (ICF's or SIP's)
It would seem that adding complexity to a home is not a good thing..
" If we're worried about saving lives shouldn't simple smoke detectors provide that?"Frenchy,
A study done at Ohio State University (I think it was last year) showed that regular smoke detectors only woke about 50% of sleeping children. Interestingly, they showed that a parents voice was much more effective, leading to a discussion of requiring recorded voice alarms.
John
It is a two way street there.
A child's whimper or cry in the night can wake up a parent as quick a smoke detector.
I have a severe hearing loss in the high frequency ranges. There are many time that I do no hear my alarm clock. Yet, my grandsons' voice saying "Papaw" will wake me to turn off the alarm that woke him up. Must be a primordial link there :)
kiddoc.
Interesting.. so alarms don't wake up kids? I guess then it wouldn't matter if the alarm was on a smoke detector or a sprinkler system then..
I have a relatively large House. 5500 sq.ft. but if my children fall out of bed upstairs in their room at the opposite end of the house I here it even before they cry. If their smoke detector went off I'd hear the click of the electrons running through the wires and be running before the alarm sounded.
Maybe that's what being a parent is all about.
I would extend a guess to think the insurance companies have already got that financial analysis done.
Which is why their discounts are only 7%?
I would extend a guess to think the insurance companies have already got that financial analysis done.
Which is why their discounts are only 7%?
I'm pretty sure the actuaries have already completed that analysis, that 7% wasnt pulled from their hind side on a whim.
Doug
I wonder how the costs of crime compares to the costs of fires. In some jurisdictions it may be higher, it certainly seems to be more common.
I've been a firefighter and have been to fire scenes where a sprinkler stopped a small fire from becoming catastrophic. Sprinklers and smoke alarms are in no way comparable. They are already required here for homes over 4000SF.
I retro fitted some sprinklers in my house in Md.
It was the typical "split foyer" house that they built millions of with the utilities under the stairway/foyer. I put sprinklers in the foyer, under the foyer in the utility room, (2) and in the hall upstairs and downstairs that define the route to the bedrooms.
That foyer is a choke point with a bomb under it.
But the point is, how many home fires are there, really? When you take the expense (perhaps $10K) and multiply it out times the total number of homes, then divide by the number that actually burn (and where the sprinklers would have done some good), what number would you get? I'm guessing it's in excess of $1M per fire controlled, and likely $5-10M per life saved. Actuarially that doesn't make sense.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
The analysis has been done, and apparently they are cost effective:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071011154124.htm
Home Fire Sprinklers Score 'A' In Cost-benefit Study
ScienceDaily (Oct. 15, 2007) — Sometimes life-saving technologies seem beyond the reach of the average person. If you put residential fire sprinklers in that category, think again. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) economists ran the numbers. Their benefit-cost analysis found that for new home construction, a multipurpose network sprinkler system that connects to a house's regular water supply and piping makes good economic sense.
See also:
Matter & Energy
Construction
Civil Engineering
Solar Energy
Computers & Math
Mathematical Modeling
Computational Biology
Statistics
Reference
Civil engineering
Energy conservation
Microeconomics
Cyber security standards
NIST's Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems report, released last month, examines data from 2002 to 2005 to value the economic performance of a residential "wet-pipe" fire sprinkler system. The additional economic benefits from installation of a multipurpose network sprinkler system (the least costly wet-pipe system available) are estimated for three types of newly constructed single-family houses that are also equipped with smoke detectors. The study builds on a prior cost analysis developed by NIST¡¯s Building and Fire Research Laboratory and offers a current analysis of the economics of residential fire sprinkler technology.
According to NIST, the cost in 2005 dollars for adding a multipurpose network sprinkler system to a house under construction was approximately $2,075 for a 3,338-square-foot colonial-style house, $1,895 for a 2,257-square-foot townhouse and $829 for a 1,171-square-foot ranch house. However when a house fire occurs, the estimated benefits of a residential fire sprinkler system include a 100 percent reduction in civilian fatalities and a 57 percent reduction in civilian injuries, a 32 percent reduction of both direct property damage (property losses that would not be covered by insurance) and indirect property costs (fire-related expenses such as temporary shelter, missed work, extra food costs, legal expenses, transportation, emotional counseling and childcare). Houses with sprinklers, in addition to smoke alarms, also received an 8 percent reduction in homeowner insurance premiums, over houses only equipped with smoke alarms.
After subtracting installation costs and weighting the benefits by the odds that a house would catch on fire, NIST economists concluded that, depending on assumptions, the net gain from installing a sprinkler system (in 2005 dollars) would vary between $704 and $4,801 for the colonial-style house, between $884 and $4,981 for the townhouse, and between $1,950 and $6,048 for the ranch-style house, over the 30-year study period. In all cases examined, the researchers found that the data supported the finding that multipurpose network residential fire sprinkler systems are cost-effective.
The United States Fire Administration (USFA), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), funded the research.
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (NISTIR 7451) by David T. Butry, M. Hayden Brown and Sieglinde K. Fuller.
Adapted from materials provided by National Institute of Standards and Technology.
I got a better solution: make people live outside. No houses allowed anywhere.
I can't go along with that, I like my creature comforts too much. My idea of going camping is staying at a Holiday Inn. :-)
John
Edited 9/21/2008 3:02 pm ET by kiddoc
"According to NIST, the cost in 2005 dollars for adding a multipurpose network sprinkler system to a house under construction was approximately $2,075 for a 3,338-square-foot colonial-style house, $1,895 for a 2,257-square-foot townhouse and $829 for a 1,171-square-foot ranch house."However the orginal article;". Mayor James H. Holmes III says that in University Park, sprinkler installation costs $10,000 to $15,000 for most homes."and "the average cost of sprinkler systems is $1.61 per square foot of space to be covered by the system.'Which are higher than the NIST study.One of the the things that I have heard in the past when this comes up a number of the areas that are requiring them had rediculous standards the run the cost way up..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
The last year I have figures for all structure fire:
2006 524,000 fires, 2,705 deaths 14,350 injuries, $9,636 direct dollar loss in millions
Residential structure fires:
2006 412,500 fires 2,620 deaths 12,925 injuries $6,990 direct dollar loss in millions
Non- residential structures:
2006 111,500 fires 85 deaths 1,425 injuries $2,646 direst dollar loss in millions
I don't know anything about actuaries, but I can do the math.
Insurance companies use actuaries to set rates to make money. The discounts that they give are the results of the states or locals passing regulations that require them to be given. It is not the results of them having a lower risk of deaths, injuries and dollar loss, or the goodnes of thier hearts.
KY is one of the states that does not require them to give discounts, so they don't. They just charge the same premium for like properties and know that over all they will make more money because x number of thier customers homes are protected by residential sprnkler system.
The same insurance company doing buisiness across the river in IN won't have the same profit margin because IN does require discounts.
Excuse the slight rant, but why the heck would we ever trust an insurance company to treat us fairly. Almost everyone has fought with one of them over some type of claim over the years. Be it home, boat, automobile, or medical they will give you as little as possible for the damage you have incurred. Now someone says that the insurance actuaries indicate that residential sprinkler system aren't worth the cost, and we just blindly take it as truth?
As I said excuse the rant, but this whole thing reeks of BS. Builders don't want the systems required in new structures because they would have to charge more ?
Get serious. They do charge more for the "oh whow" granite counter tops and get away with it every day because that is good business. They will also charge more to meet the new NEC code requirements or any othe code improvement that comes down the pike and just include it in the per square foot cost of building a home. It won't be a "oh wow" mark up, just a little more cost to pass along.
I think that Yearly Flushing requirement would not be needed if you just piped it in series and ended it in a hose bib on the outside of the house. Watering the yard flushes the fire suppression system.
Rebuilding my home in Cypress, CA
Also a CRX fanatic!
I don't feel it's healthy to keep your faults bottled up inside me.
On Hometime the worked with a condo (townhouse) developer and customized one of the units as it was under construction.It had a sprinker system. It used PEX and each head had a manafold with I think 4 connections. It was plumbed in a "spider web" pattern and all the cold water for the house flowed through them. Thus it was continously flushed..
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Residential sprinkler systems we had installed in Marin County ran $7 to 8K I believe. About a 2500 to 3000 foot house. They cannot be connected to the domestic water supply. Installer always used an orange plastic pipe rated for sprinklers. They may have pex now if approved by the various building depts.John
Yeah, well that's Marin County. The sprinkler heads probably have to be approved by the neighborhood architectural committee.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
Edited 9/21/2008 8:09 pm by DanH
It had a sprinker system. It used PEX and each head had a manafold with I think 4 connections. It was plumbed in a "spider web" pattern and all the cold water for the house flowed through them. Thus it was continously flushed
That doesn't sound right.
Sprinkler systems can be fed with the same domestic water supply but are required to have a double check valve between them and the domestic water usage side. Mixing is not permited.
Annual flushing of a system is done to get the sediment and junk out of the lines that could clog up a head. We advise people to do the same thing with thier water heaters here all the time. No big deal.
There's no reason to require sprinklers to be separate from domestic water, if the sprinkler piping is rated for potable water. How many homeowners are going to do the annual flushing required to keep sprinklers functional otherwise?
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
I agree that there is no rational for it, but the specs and regulations for sprinkler systems were written for commercial and industrial uses many years ago.
Around here sprinkler systems fall under the jurisdiction of the state fire marshal. The state health department has authority over plumbing inpsections. Two different animals and two different sets of requirements.
As I said, it is like real estate,....location is important.
When I put the residential system in my shop the plumbing inspector required the double check valves. The state fire marshal then required that I remove my isolation valve for the system unless I changed it to one that could be locked on. He wanted the domestic water shut off valve shut off untill any repairs needed on the spinkler system were complete. Kind of forces me to repair the sprinkler system if I want domestic water, and that was thier rational.
BTW, I did not get a discount on my insurance. I did get a song and dance about water damage from my agent, to which I said BS. I am in a rural foundation saver, er volunter fire district. I pay a higher premium because I'm in such a district and know that most fires out here are near total losses. Even a lot of water damage is cheaper than a total loss or the loss of life.
http://www.uponor-usa.com/Header/Global/Testimonials/Default/Nichols-Story/Overview.aspx"The traditional method of installing residential fire sprinklers requires three sets of piping: one for hot water, a second for cold water, and a third for a standalone sprinkler system. The multipurpose Uponor system combines the cold-water plumbing and the fire-sprinkler line into one. As a result, a multipurpose installation can cost up to 15% less than a standalone system, averaging only 1 to 2 percent of the total cost of building a new home.The Uponor system is the only non-stagnant, fire-sprinkler system currently available. Each time a cold-water plumbing fixture is used, fresh water is drawn to the sprinkler, eliminating stagnant water from the system. In the event of a fire, a sprinkler is heat-activated at 155°F. In less than three minutes, the flow of water discharges at 10 to 15 gallons per minute through only the sprinkler that senses the heat from the fire. Once that fire is contained – usually in three to five minutes – the homeowner can turn off the system, even before the fire department arrives. "A picture is of the units installed is shown.http://www.uponor-usa.com/Header/Global/Customer-Service/FAQs/Fire.aspx" The Uponor fire safety system is actually incorporated into your Uponor PEX Plumbing System. It uses the same Wirsbo AQUAPEX¯ tubing that provides water to the plumbing fixtures in your home so there is always a ready supply of water to the sprinkler headsA dedicated manifold feeds ½" Wirsbo AQUAPEX tubing directly to a special fitting equipped with four outlets. This fitting is attached to the sprinkler head. The remaining three ports on the fitting are then used to feed other sprinklers or plumbing fixtures.The result is an interconnected grid of plumbing fixtures and sprinklers. The combination system reduces cost and ensures reliability. The system also eliminates stagnant water because the same lines that are used to feed your sprinklers are used to feed your facets, showers and toilets. As long as you have water supplied to your plumbing fixtures, you know you have water supplied to your sprinklers.".
.
A-holes. Hey every group has to have one. And I have been elected to be the one. I should make that my tagline.
Thanks for the links Bill.
It still comes down to local codes as to what system you can use. Maybe seeking a variance will allow them to be used now, I don't know.
As I pointed out, most emulsifier or wet/dry system codes were written for commercial and industrail safety. Residential system had to meet those same standards because there just weren't enough of them around to warrant setting up a stand alone standards or codes for them.
Simply put.
Just because it is available, doesn't mean it meets your local codes.
http://www.iafc.org/displayindustryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=37573
Yay!
John
Instead of mandating it why not give the ones that decide they want sprinklers a break on their insurance instead of requiring everyone to have them Like they do with air bags or alarm systems. the last thing we need is more government control telling us what we need to do.ML
I see it as more government interference and another needless expense. They can't legislate EVERY safety measure in the world, but they keep trying.
Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It is already tomorrow in Australia.
> Instead of mandating it why not give the ones that decide they want sprinklers a break on their insurance instead of requiring everyone to have them Like they do with air bags or alarm systems.Because then no spec homes will be built with them. And it's not something that can be economically retrofitted.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
Then the spec builder can decide if he wants to build sprinklers into the house and offer it as a added value, to help sell his homes...ML
Yeah, right. I'm sure a lot of spec builders will jump at the chance.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
Dan I'm not saying they won't jump at the chance let the builder decide It should not be mandated fro every home in America. if you wish to retrofit them to your home.... fine.
Not everybody does!ML
One thing I haven't seen any one mention is that here the requirements for the sprinkler system at times are not so much concerned with the individual dwelling or owner but rather with the greater community surrounding the dwelling.
No fire fighting water available in a community puts a huge risk on the surrounding homes, or forest land as is the case in both the jurisdictions here.
They can't get your Goat if you don't tell them where it is hidden.
I would assume once sprinklers are required in new residential then mandated retrofits are inevitable. The question will be when and where. Ideally it doesn't happen for 25 years or more and gets phased in. I think politically it would be undoable untill the majority of homes already are done so it will be a function of the age of the housing stock. It may become a requirement when any major renovation is undertaken or upon transfer of title. That way the politicians will only annoy a small percentage of people at any one time.
I do agree however, with those who say sprinklers are a good idea. The devil is in the details.
GFCIs & AFCIs aren't required to be retrofitted. Smoke detectors were required in new construction for 20 years or so before being required in existing homes. Things are always grandfathered.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
Thats what one would think. Here however, the fire inspectors went through the neighbourhood giving owners of buildings with three or more units that were previously grandfathered, 30 days to comply with the firecode. There was no prior warning or communication to the owners from the government that I am aware of. The previous policy was to address deficiencies when the properties were sold etc.
None of the owners that I know were able to meet the deadline which both sides knew to be unrealistic.
It is difficult to see such a hardnosed approach being taken to single family residential in the near future but...
Multi-unit housing is generally subject to different rules than single-family homes -- much less grandfathering. This has always been the case pretty much everywhere.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
I'm familiar with sprinklers in high rise T.I. buildings but not in residential. I do think they could be beneficial regardless. But would they be hooked up to domestic water supply or work off a pressurized tank with a fire pump like they do here in office buildings. Also the issue of flushing and yearly inspections come sinto play as others have said. I could see it as being a fairly costly renovation.ML
Actually, most building sprinkler systems just work off of mains pressure. The fire pumps are only needed in high-rises and other large buildings.The maintenance issue is a real one. The new systems that circulate domestic cold water through them seem like a good idea -- no flushing required and minimal maintenance overall. The other alternative would be a dry system, I suppose. If some scheme isn't invented to minimize maintenance then it will be like the water heaters that we know EVERYONE flushes every 6 months like they're supposed to.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
You mean everyone is afraid to flush them since it will break something loose. :) Just like the old homes that have gate valves for shut off in lieu of ball valves. Never fails soon as you touch them they start leaking.ML
Yep, that. But mostly the fact that is simply doesn't get done.
There is no absurdity that human beings will not resort to in order to defend another absurdity. -- Cicero
If you are on a well you may require an additional "pump and tank". I wonder if a backup power supply for the pump might be required also.
In my area, the towns that require residential fire sprinkler systems have higher street water pressure and an upsized water feed.
The domestic and fire water systems are teed off the main when it enters the home (single family home).
There are backfeed prevention valves on the sprinkler sytem to prevent potable water contamination (I am not a plumber, so this is just the gist of it). These valves need an annual inspection.
Systems here so far are wet.
The systems, in general, are much simpler than commercial or multi family installations.
Commercial installs where the municipal water supply won't deliver an adequate volume of water require a big pump and (dedicated) backup power.
I wouldn't be opposed to owning an home with sprinklers just don't want anyone telling me I HAVE TO have them.ML
Would you remove seat belts from cars and not require helmets for motorcycles? If that happened insurance cost would skyrocket.
Reinvent, I'm not in favor of either being mandated. If I want to splatter my melon against the asphalt that should be my decision.It's not the Govn't responsibility to keep me from hurting myself.Suppose you think the Gov't should mandate what we are permitted to eat too? after all steak steak and eggs may make someone fat!It's called liberty.ML
Edited 10/3/2008 9:22 am by MSLiechty
There are pex residential sprinkler heads that have all domestic cold water run thru them on the way to the demand location. Never any stagnate water.http://na.rehau.com/construction/heating...plumbing/residential.fire.protection/residential.fire.protection.shtmlhttp://www.x-fire.biz/HomeFireSprinklers.htm
Glad you posted that link.
Now I have to convince my local inspector that I don't need the check valvels I had to install in my system.
Just like real estate,.... location is everything.