Add a Comment

Comment by Peter Lupkowski on September 22, 2009 at 12:48pm

NAHB Reviewing 2,400 Proposed ICC Code Changes When you continue to have these arbitrary requirements that have significant cost increase with no cost benefit, that's essentially making it to where people can't afford the home," said Steve Orlowski with the Washington-based National Association of Home Builders.
Residential Fire Sprinklers. A number of proposals would effectively rescind the controversial September, 2008 decision to mandate fire sprinkler systems in all one- and two-family homes through the International Residential Code.

That's odd, I never thought of saving a life as controversial. They have a nice looking place for a trade association.

Comment by Peter Lupkowski on January 29, 2009 at 1:13pm

My local paper published the letter in total- even though it was over their maximum length. Since then my chief has received two requests for information on including sprinklers in new construction and the local housing authority used the story as the tipping point to retrofit an existing building. Take a chance, make a difference, sometimes we do get payback. Thanks everyone for your comments and help!

Comment by Robin Inman on December 1, 2008 at 7:06pm

Great post.....when did good old common sense and the value of human life go out the window. I just don't understand insurance companies and cities that don't put safety first.....we had something similar up here with just a little twist, instead of sprinklers being the problem, some local contractors found their way around some codes that needed to be changed but had not yet and build these condos, very nice, very upscale....the problem? In their greed to make as much money as possible they built them so close together that the roads going into them were narrow, narrow one lane roads. An engine or ladder truck could barley squeeze in (with of course no where to turn around), then when you added the people who tried to also park on the streets instead of their driveways or garages it was impossible to get in them. Fortunetly and Unfortunetly not long after they started going up one went up in flames and the city was appalled at how quickly the building burned down and with the loss of 6 lives. All because it was almost impossible for the engines to get in close. Thankfully a few of our politicans got on the band wagon and got the codes changed, even while contractors threatened to file lawsuits because this would hurt their livelyhoods. We still have 8 condo buildings that were already built, but at least no more can be built with the old codes. When did money and livelyhoods become more important than human life? Very, Very scary. Keep up the good work, only continued education and enforcement gets things changed.

Comment by Oldman on November 22, 2008 at 12:13pm

Excellent post. I would love to know who his insurance company is... so I know who not to use. Harris County adopted the International Building Code for commercial interests in the unincorporated areas of the county and requires sprinklers, unless there is not a water supply system. Most areas out here still rely on wells, so most new businesses in my district are exempt from the requirement.

Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on November 22, 2008 at 10:37am

First off; Peter; I didn’t mean to steal your blog, which is great, by the way!
I put selling communities on residential sprinklers to reduce costs right up there with selling firefighters on physical fitness to reduce heart attacks.
If it COSTS, then it doesn’t PAY! If you PAY, then you don’t SAVE!
People only see the front end costs and can’t see their back end savings through the big ass of special interests! (Yes; you may quote me)
It is obvious to me where insurance companies are on this: They continue to heavily invest in commercial and industrial paper, but where the most fatalities occur-in residential fires-they offer little beyond their token programs like “Be like Hector; Get a Smoke Detector!” Ooh; I’ll take ten!
Here is a publication worth reading: http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/publications/nistirs/NISTIR_7277.pdf
But, check out this article that I dug up from the archives:
In 1982, Rural Metro Fire Department, with help from the city of Scottsdale and numerous other organizations, conducted the first fullscale residential fire tests in new residential structures to demonstrate how effective residential sprinkler technology really is. Factory Mutual supplied all the technical support and measured the actual fire conditions, while Sentry Insurance developed the fire loss data and damage estimates. The estimates of losses without sprinklers were based on standard guidelines for fire department response and equipment. The fire damage estimates for sprinkler protection were based on actual damage and structure conditions.
The tests indicated that residential sprinklers could have a positive effect on losses in single-family homes, but they didn't reveal how effective the sprinklers would be if they were installed in all new homes. We didn't have that information until 1996, the 10th anniversary of Scottsdale's sprinkler ordinance, which required sprinkler protection for all new construction, including single-family homes.
Chief Robert Edwards presented the Scottsdale Sprinkler Ordinance to the City Council on June 4,1985, and it passed by a vote of six to one. The requirements for the commercial and multifamily properties went into effect 30 days after the council meeting, and the residential sprinkler portion of the ordinance was implemented on January 1,1986.
A closer look at the Scottsdale statistics
As of January 1, 1996, 19,649, or 35 percent, of Scottsdale's singlefamily homes were sprinklered, as were 13,938, or 49 percent, of the city's multifamily homes.
Between 1986 and 1995, residential sprinklers activated in 44 of the 598 home fires that occurred in Scottsdale. Forty-one of these fires were controlled or contained by one or two sprinklers. Two of the three fires in which more sprinklers were needed to extinguish the blaze were flammable liquid arson fires.
No one died in these 44 fires. If the death rate per fire in the sprinklered homes had matched the rate in unsprinklered homes, however, the fatalities that did occur in home fires during that period might have nearly doubled. As it was,10 people died in 8 fires, all in unsprinklered single-family homes. Smoke detectors had been installed in seven of the homes, and at least four of the detectors were working. The highrisk groups for fire safety were well-represented: three of the victims were elderly, two were impaired, and two were children.
The estimated amount of water discharged when a residential sprinkler system activated was 209 gallons, as opposed to an estimated 3,690 gallons released by firefighters extinguishing a house fire with hoses. The average loss per incident was lower, too: $1,544 in sprinklered properties as opposed to $11,624 in unsprinklered properties.
What did it cost?
Unfortunately, various groups still oppose the widespread installation of residential sprinklers. Among the issues such groups raise, the one most often cited is cost.
To determine whether cost is a legitimate concern, Scottsdale commissioned a study in 1986 to evaluate the impact of cost on residential structures under construction. Using the material costs in effect at the time, the study estimated that the price of the average residential sprinkler system would come to approximately $1.14 per square foot for a 2,000-square-foot home. When design freedom benefits were included, the total costs of installing a residential sprinkler system were $157.24 to the builder and approximately $212.27 to the buyer.
Design freedom benefits help offset the cost of mandatory sprinkler protection. In Scottsdale, such benefits include a density increase of 4 percent for single-family communities, a reduction in residential street width from 32 to 28 feet, and an increase in cul de sac lengths from 600 feet to a maximum of 2,000 feet. In the building code, the requirement for one-hour-rated construction was eliminated for separations between multifamily homes, and single-family homes no longer need to separate garages with one-hour-rated construction and rated doors.
In addition, fire hydrant spacing was increased from 330 to 700 feet for developments in which multifamily dwellings predominate, and from 660 feet to 1,200 feet for fully sprinklered single-family developments. Sprinklers reduced the required fire flow demand for structures by 50 percent, typically resulting in a reduction in water main size and the use of smaller water storage tanks. This also made it possible to use reclaimed water in the fire protection systems in commercial structures in communities where the potable water supplies were inadequate.
Since the 1986 study, sprinkler installation costs have declined consistently. By June 1989, the costs for production homes and custom homes had dropped to $.79 per square foot and $.89 per square foot, respectively. By March 1993, the price had dropped again, this time to $.63 per square foot for production homes and $.79 per square foot for custom homes. And those prices dropped even further by January 1996, when automatic sprinklers were being installed in production homes for $.59 per square foot and in custom homes for $.70 per square foot.
Currently, some companies are installing residential sprinklers in Scottsdale for close to $.50 per square foot. This means that a 2,500square-foot house can have residential sprinkler protection for $1,250 to $1,500 initial cost, plus contractor overhead. These figures don't include the savings that accure from the design freedoms identified by the city fire ordinance.
There are three primary reasons for this downward trend in cost. First, residential sprinklers are mandatory in the community, and established standards have been identified. Second, the materials are easier to obtain and use than they used to be. And third, there's open competition among installers for the available business.
Of course, Scottsdale's location has a positive effect on installation costs: The climate is favorable, and the area has experienced dramatic growth, advantages that might not apply in other areas of the country. However, those factors aren't as important as the industry's ability to be innovative, productive, and cost-effective when conditions allow businesses to compete openly for residential sprinkler installations.
Insurance rates and water damage
How have insurance carriers responded to residential sprinklers? A review of the policies of several major carriers across the country identified large variations in the discounts given homeowners who install such systems.
Depending on the design of the system and on the areas protected, discounts range from 5 to 45 percent. The higher discounts are available only when sprinkler protection is combined with other features, such as smoke detectors, system monitoring, fire extinguishers, and deadbolt locks. Surveys of insurers in Scottsdale indicate that most offer some type of discount-about 10 percent on average-for approved residential sprinkler protection.
Those in the building industry, some people in real estate, and individual insurance agents often report that residential sprinklers actually increase insurance costs for residential properties because the sprinklers could leak and cause water damage. Although a survey of local and national insurance providers in Arizona failed to identify any organization that subscribes to this practice, the myth of higher insurance costs due to the possibility of water refuses to go away.
When examined closely, the issue of water damage is full of holes. All new homes already have an extensive network of plumbing for domestic use. Typically, the water and flows required for the domestic water system dictate the connection and size of the water meter for the house, which usually exceed the hydraulic demands for residential sprinklers. Domestic networks are tested for their ability to handle the static pressure from the community distribution system without developing any leaks, not for reliability.
Typical domestic distribution system pressures range from 60 to 100 psi. The most popular sprinkler construction material, CPVC pipe, has a rated burst test pressure of 650 psi, and the typical residential sprinkler is tested at 500 psi. In Scottsdale, the materials used for residential sprinkler installations-usually copper and CPVC piping-are pressure tested at 150 psi for 24 hours to identify weak pipe sections and joints or other installation problems. NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, requires pressure testing for two hours at 200 psi. These tests far exceed the requirements already accepted for domestic water systems and will identify any area of the sprinkler piping network that was installed incorrectly or had material defects.
Because both copper and CPVC are approved potable supply piping materials, backflow shouldn't be an issue, either, particularly since a resilient seat check valve is installed in these systems.
The installation of automatic sprinkler systems usually allows for a reduction in the requirements for standby and fire flow water of up to 50 percent, since it's generally accepted that the calculated flows from sprinkler systems are much more effective early in a fire than the larger fire suppression hose lines and master stream devices.
In the early 1980s, flows from residential sprinklers were calculated at 18 gallons per minute (gpm) for a maximum coverage area of 144 square feet. Recent improvements in sprinklers have resulted in water flows of 16 gpm to cover an area of 400 square feet. Compare this figure with standard fire suppression interior hose lines, which flow an average of 100 to 200 gpm. This translates to an estimated average total water demand of 3,000 to 5,996 gallons to control a fire. Residential sprinklers, on the other hand, use an average of 209 gallons.
An in-depth study of the first 40 structural fires of 1986 in which sprinklers activated supports these calculations. Of these 40 properties, 28 were commercial occupancies, 8 were multifamily homes, and 4 were single-family homes. Definitive times and flows couldn't be established in two of the fires, but the study used the 38 identifiable activations to compare sprinkler activation and flows to estimated fire flows from fire suppression handlines.
The actual flow times for the sprinklers, as recorded on activation records, were used as a baseline. Residential sprinkler flow calculations were set at 18 gpm for a single sprinkler and 26 gpm for two sprinklers, the original base guidelines established in NFPA 13D, Sprinklers Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes. Commercial sprinkler flows were set at an average of 25 gpm for each sprinkler, while fire flows were based on two 13/4-inch handlines flowing 200 gpm each.
The sprinkler flow calculations for all 38 fires came to 13,573 gallons of water, or an average of 357 gallons of water per fire. In the suppression operations, 185,600 gallons of water were used, for an average discharge of 4,884 gallons of water per fire. We at the Scottsdale Fire Department estimate that the suppression flow times to control all 38 fires were the same as the sprinkler control times. This exercise illustrates that smaller amounts of water, distributed earlier in a fire by built-in protection, limit the spread of fire and minimize water damage.
Can they control flammable liquid fires?
It's been reported that automatic sprinkler systems can't control fast, flaming, flammable liquid fires or protect people who are intimate with ignition. However, this hasn't been the case in Scottsdale. In residential applications alone, residential sprinkler technology has been extremely effective in numerous cases.
Take the three separate arson fires in which gasoline was used as an accelerant. In the first, a sleeping 21-year-old man was doused with gasoline and set on fire. The blaze activated a single quick response sprinkler, which saved the victim's life and limited damage to the structure. In the second fire, 13 sprinklers activated when an arsonist tried to burn down a two-story house using gasoline. The sprinklers controlled the fire and saved the structure. Gasoline was also used as an accelerant in the third fire, in which an arsonist tried to destroy a house under construction. Fortunately, the residential sprinkler system had already been installed, and two sprinklers controlled the fire. There were also two instances in which residential sprinkler systems controlled fires ignited by flammable gas vapors. In the first, an LP-gas tank stored in a utility closet developed a leak, and the leaking gas came in contact with the pilot light of the water heater. A single sprinkler controlled the resulting fire, which did only $40 worth of damage. The second fire occurred when a natural gas water heater developed a leak. When the gas vapors ignited, a single sprinkler activated and controlled the fire. Damage was so minimal that the fire department wasn't even called. Obviously, residential sprinklers are effective on all types of fires, including the kitchen grease fires common in homes.
Several years ago, Operation Life Safety published an article asking what the mission of a fire department really was. Does a fire department best serve its community by suppressing fires quickly and efficiently? Or does it do so by keeping fires from occurring? Clearly, it's more economical and effective to use available technology to reduce the impact of fire than it is to continually increase one's efforts to provide traditional, reactive protection. Can the fire service afford to concentrate its available resources on activities that make up a smaller and smaller percentage of the requests it gets for emergency services every year?
The Scottsdale Fire Department believes that Scottsdale's experience over the last 10 years has proven to be more than just an experiment. There's no question that all the major players in the fire protection industry in the United States can do more to promote better fire protection for our homes.
TCSS.
Art

Comment by Trainer on November 22, 2008 at 7:31am

What surprises me here is the insurance company does not discount for the sprinklers, that’s just stupid!

Comment by Paul Montpetit on November 22, 2008 at 7:17am

I had to do a paper for a class on Fire Supression....and I found a very interesting fact....a sprinkler system adds only approximately(depending on area) 1% to the building costs to a new home.....1%....that's it...seems to me to be a pretty inexpensive way to protect your loved ones....as Brunicini says...Fire is natures way...the only thing it understands is large amounts of water properly applied at the appropriate time....Paul

Comment by Jenny Holderby on November 22, 2008 at 2:08am

Gee, I'm glad they still require sprinklers for commercial buildings around here. There are more residential sprinklers going into the new high tech, high priced homes being built too. THAT is a GOOD thing as far as I'm concerned. Peter, good job!! I don't think people really realize how little the upkeep is OR how sprinkler systems REALLY work.

I work in a library. Some years ago, they didn't want sprinklers in Libraries because, the school of thought was that we didn't want all that water raining down on our collection. Water damage is irrepairable. Later, they went to dry chem systems. OH WOW!! Dry Chemicals get EVERYWHERE through the ventilation system traces of it are found literally all over the building. The clean up of the chemicals is almost as bad as the fire itself. Now we have sprinkler systems that have the heads fairly close together so that if a fire breaks out, the sprinklers above or closest to it will open. The damage is far less than with no sprinklers. Only the area of the collection where the fire IS will be damaged leaving possibly several thousand linear feet of material untouched. As a library stacks manager & on the emergency procedures team, I would much rather deal with a small section of ruined material than the entire collection.
In 1996 when the fireworks store caught fire here, had the sprinkler system been operational. . . well I don't have to tell you guys the benefit that would have been. Instead 9 people died. You might imagine how we (firefighters) felt every time we dug an unopened sprinkler head out of the rubble.
Nine more lives were lost in the area a couple of years ago when an appartment building with no sprinklers caught fire.

Comment by Mick Mayers on November 21, 2008 at 10:54pm

Hey- I think you hit the mark there and it is truly amazing how the insurance industry seems to work the fence on this and several other issues (ISO being one of them). When my wife and I built our home ten years ago, I figured, hey, walk the walk- I'd put in residential sprinklers. Discussion with the insurance company, short version of the story: no reduction in premium. Couple that with some Hollywood scare tactics (the ol' one sprinkler goes off they all go off) and convincing my wife became the battle I chose to walk away from. Hey, but I have a pretty serious burglar alarm system- they WILL give you a reduction for that.

Your point however, is well taken. Prevention is the key- when we are called in, the system has failed. The big question is, when will elected officials start realizing that requiring sprinklers may cost on the front end, but will save us all in reduction of fire fatalities, property loss, and the cost of suppression activities. My guess is when the NHBA lobbyists start realizing that it doesn't cost them- they're going to pass it on to the consumer anyway.

Comment by Peter Lupkowski on November 21, 2008 at 12:32pm

Please feel free to offer opinion on the post AND constructive criticism on the writing. I would like to submit this to my local papers. As always thanks. Pete