# Sprinkler debate



## timh

Every other year our Building Dept puts on a Builders Seminar to help educate our contractors. This year we hope to sponsor a debate on the merits of residential sprinklers. I thought it would be very easy to get someone from the "homebuilders Assc. to come and argue against. So far our regional and state associations have blown me off. I have an e-mailed request in with the National Homebuilders Assc. but am not holding breath. I thought it would be real easy since  all of our city assembly members will be invited and they will shortly thereafter be voting on weather to adopt the sprinklers along with other code changes.Anybody got any good ideas on who could come and argue against residential sprinklers? I do want to get a strong, well informed debator so the debate remains credible.  I should also let everyone know I am in Sitka, AK and all we can help with is hotels and food, no travel assistance. I am running out of time to line someone up, the seminar is scheduled for Oct. 28 &29

thanks Tim


----------



## mark handler

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=hts&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGLL_enUS331US331&q=Sprinkler+debate


----------



## Uncle Bob

TimH,

Wow;

http://sitkaphotos.blogspot.com/

Shoot any outsider that isn't a tourist; and keep this beautiful place out of our mess down here in the lower 48.

A main attraction is the Bishop's house; 200 years plus old; that has been there since Stika was a part of Russia. You don't need no stinking building codes; or sprinklers.

The Building Official should be responsible for maintaining the ambience of that beautiful place.

The NAHB has moved to use another tactic to defeat the sprinker systems. I would think they would have already worked on the State. Maybe you can get a NAHB rep from Anchorage or Seattle.

Wow, what a beautiful place,

Uncle Bob


----------



## timh

Uncle Bob,

We have one of the most restrictive sprinkler codes in the state, more or less if it ain't a R-3 you have to sprinkle it. Believe it or not the National Park Service Sprinkled the Russian Bishops House when they aquired it sevral years ago. It's the niciest retrofit I have ever seen.

We try to avoid the problems from outside, but they still seem to make it here sooner or later.

Tim


----------



## incognito

It really should not be much of a debate. Make the sprinkler advocates answer the following question,

1). Of all the homes in Sitka that were built in the last 30 years, how many have had a fire related death occur?

Watch them try to not answer the question. They will come up with all kinds of BS excuses why that info is not relevant. The only reason it isn't "relevant" to them is that the answer typically blows them out of the water.  Follow the money. The sprinkler industry stands to turn a profit in the BILLIONS every year from the installation of residential sprinklers. Nothing but a scam.


----------



## FM William Burns

Looks like they need a fire official out there in about eight years who understands the bigger picture and why we all serve  

Indeed a beautiful place and hopefully you "all" can keep it that way.


----------



## rshuey

I attended a great sprinkler info session last year in Philly. It was done by a Fire Chief from TN. The co goes all over for these. I will did up the info for you.


----------



## rshuey

Chief Shane Ray is his name. get ahold of him.

Great presentation, tons of info and materials.

http://www.chiefshaneray.com/Endorsements.asp


----------



## incognito

Yeah his material is great if you are looking for biased info in favor of residential fire sprinklers. Nevermind that what has occurred in the last 30 years is a clear indication that fire sprinklers will have virtually no effect on deaths in dwellings for several generations.


----------



## rshuey

incognito said:
			
		

> Yeah his material is great if you are looking for biased info in favor of residential fire sprinklers. Nevermind that what has occurred in the last 30 years is a clear indication that fire sprinklers will have virtually no effect on deaths in dwellings for several generations.


I like the sprinklers because as a volunteer fire fighter, there may be one day i need to get in that window to help someone out. That sprinkler head is gonna help keep my flesh from peeling off. That's it, really. Save the house, maybe. Protect your fire fighters and allow them to do their jobs? PRICELESS.


----------



## permitguy

You should just hire incognito.  He'll mop the floor with that pro-sprinkler socialist hippy scum.


----------



## incognito

Why is it so difficult for those in favor of sprinklers to answer a simple question?

1). Of all the homes in your jurisdiction that were built in the last 30 years, how many have had a fire related death occur?

I am not interested in your imaginery events of may/if something happens. What are you afraid of? I know what the answer is in my jurisdiction and I suspect it will be much the same every where else. In my jurisdiction the answer is a big zero, zilch, nada.   If not for outright scare tactics and desperate what if/or when scenarios the pro-sprinkler advocates would have nothing.


----------



## FM William Burns

Jurisdiction – (1) 2800 s.f. home built in 1986.  Incident in 1999!

District/Coverage Area – (2) 1600 s.f. home built in 1982.  Incident in 2002!

                                      1450 s.f. mfg home built in 1994.  Incident in 1998!



With respect to families; I will *not* post the specifics but it does happen and if NFIRS (National Fire Incident Reporting System) had a field for “age of structure” these statistics would be available for scrutiny.


----------



## RJJ

incognito: I had promised myself I would not post on sprinkler issues. I have voted against them and personally don't see the need. I have witnessed first hand the scare tactics use by the industry to force them in. That being said, I have tried to maintain an objective out look on the impact, cost, need and the statistical issues you raise. I have also taken on an ahj that has required them for ten years. Interesting twist for me being opposed and then having to review and inspect 13d systems. Did I sell out? NO! It is a law which I must enforce to the best of my ability.

Sprinklers have or will become common place as we move forward. I agree, that a local ahj has the right to enforce the requirement or not. These are all separate issues and should remain such. I don't believe anyone can argue that people don't die in fires. Even with smoke detectors people die. Most often when detectors are not working. Older housing stock I don't believe is a fair target for comparing what 13d sprinklers will do or not do. I feel that it will take 30 years to have any real facts. We need to get quite a bit of the new housing stock built with sprinklers to have a real handle. We can not just look at Scottsdale's as, oh that is the bench mark.

In your ahj the answer is NO. That's great! I believe as professionals we need to look at the big picture. First, being the way we construct building to day. I had a lighting strike that burned a new home under construction down to the foundation in less then 15 min. An eye opener!

Much to be considered in this sprinkle or not case. No one likes change, but when it comes we must deal with it. If there was a chance to turn the sprinkler bus around I would lead the charge. Only time will tell if we have chosen the right path. Maybe only one child will be saved, or one grandmother, or perhaps one firefighter because of a 13d system. When that happens we must weight the value. This is and has been a great topic regarding sprinklers. Time will tells us as it always does.


----------



## incognito

Thank you FMWB. I would not ask for you to be overly specific for the reason you mentioned. Were these all in the same jurisdiction? I am just a little confused by your answer format. Obviously it doesn't take much   .

RJJ; I try not to fall prey to the emotionalism that goes with "if we only save one child, elderly person or firefighter it is worth it". If the firefighters/EMT actually believed this they would be promoting a reduction of speed limits across the board by 50%. Such a reduction would result in saving over 30,000 lives a year and many more life altering injuries. Not only that, the benefits would be immediate---not decades into the future.


----------



## timh

Well with the exception of "Incognito" (Why don't you come on up and debate) it looks like nobody really knows of anyone that truely wants to argue (debate) the lack of merits of residential sprinklers systems.  I find it amazing the amount of money and effort put into the sprinkler fight by the homebuilders and yet they all run for cover when asked to debate.

Looks like our NFPA expert is just going to have to debate with himself.  Maybe I should set things up as if it was a debate and just put a sign up on the homebuilders podium "no show". Would make for a nice photo op.


----------



## pwood

timh,

  i hear it gets cold in alaska! anti-freeze solutions are a must in residential sprinkler systems i would imagine. did you hear that the anti freeze solution can be an accelerant and can cause explosions? NFPA will be prohibiting anti freeze in residential systems. stay tuned sprinkler fans in cold climates.


----------



## FM William Burns

Incognito: Two within coverage area, one within city limits!

Pwood: The TIA to MFPA 13 is already out effective 8/25/10.  It's posted in RF Codes and Commercial F Codes for viewing.


----------



## pwood

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Incognito: Two within coverage area, one within city limits!Pwood: The TIA to MFPA 13 is already out effective 8/25/10. It's posted in RF Codes and Commercial F Codes for viewing.


fm,

  MFPA? :mrgreen:


----------



## FM William Burns

PW:

Yea...those darn keys should not be next to each other


----------



## incognito

FMWB,

Why would they not collect this info? Anytime you make a significant addition to the code, such as adding smoke detectors, wouldn't you want to have accurate data as to their effectiveness? If over the next 10, 15, or 20 years if we do not see a significant reduction in fire related deaths, are we to assume that fire sprinklers are ineffective?


----------



## mark handler

California Building Industry Association

1215 K Street, Suite 1200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 443-7933

Fax: (916) 443-1960

Fire Marshal Issues Bulletin Aimed at Reducing Sprinkler CostsIn response to a CBIA request, the Office of the State Fire Marshal has issued an Information Bulletin designed to help reduce compliance costs associated with the new national sprinkler mandate that takes effect Jan. 1, 2011.

In some jurisdictions, water purveyors have indicated concern that the installation of residential sprinklers might prompt the need for a larger water meter or a secondary water meter, significantly increasing sprinkler installation costs. However, the State Fire Marshal has clarified that a “domestic water shutoff valve” may be used, effectively negating the need for any additional water demand by the home in the event of a fire.

As the name implies, the (inexpensive) domestic shutoff valve automatically shuts off the domestic water supply and diverts the water supply to the sprinkler system in the rare event of sprinkler activation.

While the final call will remain with the local water purveyor, the State Fire Marshal bulletin already is providing a level of comfort to some purveyors as the state readies for the implementation of the new sprinkler mandate.

• Read the bulletin

http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/?LinkServID=06F6F84B-1413-41E2-807662D3C952F48E&showMeta=0

http://www.cbia.org/go/cbia/?LinkServID=06F6F84B-1413-41E2-807662D3C952F48E&showMeta=0


----------



## FM William Burns

Igcognito:  Sorry, didn't know you replied again since I have not been here for a while.  That data is not an import field in the reporting fields in the two states I've worked in.  It is however in the standard used to create the NFIRS reporting system (NFPA 901).  The detection data fields are in the previously referenced state reporting systems though.


----------



## That Inspector Guy

incognito said:
			
		

> Why is it so difficult for those in favor of sprinklers to answer a simple question? 1). Of all the homes in your jurisdiction that were built in the last 30 years, how many have had a fire related death occur? *Seven over the course of the past 11 years*
> 
> I am not interested in your imaginery events of may/if something happens.


 Not imaginary: in the 21 years I have been both a career and volunteer firefighter (different jurisdictions than where I am now a code official) I have never, not once, ever, dragged a body out of, or had to help the coroner's office package up a dead body inside a sprinklered dwelling. I have, however, dragged 4 bodies out of a non-sprinklered dwelling, and have helped the coroner's office package up and remove about a half-dozen more.The builders have to give and take a little more. If they want to use lightweight wood frame construction, they need to sprinkler it. If they don't want to sprinkler, then they need to use traditional dimensional lumber building methods. This will help any occupants gain enough time to get out, or to allow rescuers to get in and remove.


----------



## packsaddle

I am two weeks away from my state law enforcement license.

I understand and accept that there are certain dangers associated with law enforcement.

Likewise, firefighters should understand and accept that there are certain dangers associated with firefighting.

Just like I choose to run into buildings with an active shooter, firefighters choose to run into buildings that are on fire.

Law enforcement officers do not require homeowners to purchase burglar alarms.

Likewise, firefighters should not require homeowners to purchase fire sprinkler systems.

Both law enforcement and firefighting are dangerous occupations.

If you can't accept that, find another career path.

Forcing homeowners to change just because you are scared of the dangers is not a valid argument.

PS.  this is not a cheap shot at firefighters, just an opinion based on logic and facts.


----------



## FM William Burns

Much respect as always, and kudos!

I am working on a sprinkler design that creates a win/win for users/responders addressing the concerns for water damage, water purveyor's greed and freezing that lead to the wide ranges of regional heartburn. I may have just found my end of the rainbow!


----------



## That Inspector Guy

packsaddle said:
			
		

> I am two weeks away from my state law enforcement license.  I understand and accept that there are certain dangers associated with law enforcement.
> 
> Likewise, firefighters should understand and accept that there are certain dangers associated with firefighting.
> 
> Just like I choose to run into buildings with an active shooter, firefighters choose to run into buildings that are on fire.
> 
> Law enforcement officers do not require homeowners to purchase burglar alarms.
> 
> Likewise, firefighters should not require homeowners to purchase fire sprinkler systems.
> 
> Both law enforcement and firefighting are dangerous occupations.
> 
> If you can't accept that, find another career path.
> 
> Forcing homeowners to change just because you are scared of the dangers is not a valid argument.
> 
> PS.  this is not a cheap shot at firefighters, just an opinion based on logic and facts.


I had to give it up due to injury. But if I were still "in", I would be willing to give up sprinklers if the builders gave up lightweight construction in lieu of traditional dimensional lumber building methods. With your train of thought, why have any building codes at all?


----------



## incognito

From what I understand the fire guy from Tennessee, Shane Ray I believe, is basically advocating that firefighters are idiots for entering any building that is on fire when they know that no one is in the burning building. Based on response times and how long the fire was burning prior to a fire call being received by the fire dept, the issue of engineered lumber or dimensional lumber is of little or no consequence. Whining about how dangerous a burning building is comparable to a cropduster complaining about the dangers of his job. If you do not have the stomach for it, find a different damn job.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> I have never, not once, ever, dragged a body out of, or had to help the coroner's office package up a dead body inside a sprinklered dwelling.


How many single family dwelling fires in those 21 years had sprinklers?


----------



## packsaddle

According to a study conducted by the New England Journal of Medicine, the greatest risk of fire death occurs in mobile/manufactured homes.

If life safety was truly the primary motive, the NFPA and other special interest groups would not have targeted new single family dwellings.

As always, it only about the money.


----------



## AegisFPE

incognito said:
			
		

> Anytime you make a significant addition to the code, such as adding smoke detectors, wouldn't you want to have accurate data as to their effectiveness?


The NFPA has released data on the effectiveness of smoke alarms: *[highlight]NFPA reports 99.45% survival rate with smoke alarms!*[/highlight]

Data from 2000 to 2004 was presented in a January 2008 NFPA report, though apparently not widely circulated:


_The chances of surviving a reported home fire when working smoke alarms are present are 99.45%_

_In 2000-2004, an average of 1,020 people per year (34% of the home structure fire fatalities) died in homes with working smoke alarms._
_Two-thirds of the smoke alarms in U.S. non-confined homes structure fires with this equipment were powered by batteries only.  These fires resulted in 73% of the associated deaths.  The 15% percent of incidents with hardwired smoke alarms with battery backup resulted in 10% of the deaths.  The 14% of reported fires with smoke alarms that were hardwired only resulted in 12% of the deaths._
Based on this NFPA report that modern interconnected smoke alarms support a 99.45% survival rate in a house fire, then the potential improvement to life safety by adding RFSS is about half-a-percent.

I think there is more to ask about a residential fire death in a modern home than "Were there sprinklers?"  Based on this report, it would suggest that the question should also be asked, "Were there working smoke alarms?"  If there were working smoke alarms, then "What may have contributed to occupant inability to self-rescue?"

Even with this demonstrated effectiveness of smoke alarms, there is always room for improvement.  In the absence of RFSS, perhaps one approach could be to add a provision to ensure a means of vertical descent from rescue windows located a certain elevation above grade below.  Another addition could be to provide increased coverage by interconnected smoke alarms throughout more of the home.

It's been a while since I have been up to fish or visit family at SJC, but I still sport my t-shirt from SFD (though it is getting a little ratty) - I may be up in Kodiak next month, but I don't think there's a connection through Sitka.  Good luck on your hunt for a speaker!


----------



## RJJ

Aegis: As always good info! I am aware of the report. I also agree that other means could have be employed for residential fire protection and over all life safety. The fact remains that RFS are now a fact. Reports such as you listed would not have supported the sprinkler cause. Thus, we have a mandated. My feeling is before the sprinklers activate those still in the house would be dead. Some/all alarms should be the main point of any overall protection. This has been put on the back page for obvious reasons. IMHO

Go Fishing and bag work! The work will be there when you return. The fish might not be!


----------



## peach

with all the other discussion about RFS, including "they don't need maintenance", I still hate to see them required.  If I want one, I'll put it in.  No different than saying my chimney never needs to be swept, or the dryer duct doesn't need to be cleaned.  Homeowners and renters (and rental property maintenance companies), don't always fathom requirements.  so when the place burns because the dryer duct is clogged or the fireplace smolders and CO kills a family - where does the responsibility lie?


----------



## RJJ

"where does the responsibility lie!"

It has to lie with each individual. Inspectors can only do so much, code the same, and government virtually nothing.

If may house burns because I didn't clean the dryer duct my bad!

If I disconnect the air bag or don't put on the seat belt my bad!

If I don't watch my childern and one falls in a pool my bad!

or out of a window again my bad!

we have to assume some responsibility! Inspectors and code can only do so much!


----------



## peach

my point exactly, RJ.. thanks


----------



## permitguy

Though I'm sure it's yet another sign of the apocalypse, I have to say congratulations to pack on your upcoming accomplishment!

Gotta go now.  Lot's of bottled water and ammunition to buy . . .


----------



## packsaddle

pg,

don't forget the dehydrated food.

and I hope you're not looking for any .45 ammo.

it's all in my safe.


----------



## permitguy

Nope.  It's .40 S&W for me, thanks.

So, on to law school after this?


----------



## packsaddle

nah.

my employer offers tuition reimbursement, so probably just an MBA.


----------



## FM William Burns

Can't wait to meet Officer Packsaddle....lawman     Kudos again and be safe!


----------



## pwood

FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Can't wait to meet Officer Packsaddle....lawman    Kudos again and be safe!


fmburns,

  careful what you wish for! he may want to do a full body cavity search! :mrgreen:


----------



## mark handler

Builders concerned about sprinkler mandate

BY COURTENAY EDELHART, Californian staff writer

cedelhart@bakersfield.com | Wednesday, Sep 22 2010 05:31 PM

Last Updated Wednesday, Sep 22 2010 05:31 PM

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x174836197/Builders-concerned-about-sprinkler-mandate

Homebuilders are bracing themselves for the latest state building code update, which mandates interior sprinkler systems in new single- and two-family homes built in California starting Jan. 1.

A recent Fire Protection Research Foundation study estimated that will add $1.61 per square foot to the cost of a new home. Local builders dispute that figure and say it could be as much as $6 per square foot.

Either way, the Office of the State Fire Marshal says indoor sprinklers are a desperately needed safety feature because as many as 3,000 people a year die in residential fires.

Builders say the new mandate is kicking them when they're down.

"In the market we live in right now, there's no room for these kinds of mandatory extra costs," said David Cates, president of Bakersfield-based Lenox Homes, who said installing sprinklers will add $3,000 to $6,000 to the cost of one of his starter homes.

Buyers of larger houses might find the money for that by downsizing, Cates said, but people shopping for smaller homes could be priced out of the market entirely.

"My prices start at $139,000. To add $6,000 on top of that is huge," Cates said.

Roger Cortez, owner of G.J. Gardner Homes, said the sprinkler requirement is especially burdensome because the state also has mandated stricter standards for energy efficiency beginning next year, and that, too, is eating into thin profit margins.

"They're just loading more and more stuff on us," Cortez said.

At the same time, he acknowledged that if he were building a home for someone he loved, he would want it to have sprinklers.

The updated California Building Standards Code reflects the recommendations of the International Residential Code, which is hammered out by a multinational coalition of fire officials, mechanical experts, architects, builders and other industry professionals. The group's recommendations aren't binding unless deemed so by government agencies, but they often are adopted by state and local jurisdictions.

Indoor sprinklers won't be a selling point, said Jeanne Radsick, owner of Century 21 Hometown Realty in Bakersfield.

"In all the years I've been selling new construction, no one ever wanted to have sprinklers," Radsick said. "They're ugly and expensive. Talk about crippling an already crippled industry. This is unbelievable."

Kevin Reinertson is the division chief for code development and analysis for the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

He said he's sympathetic to builders struggling in a weak economy, but insisted "there really is no wrong time to do this. These are fire and life safety issues."

Also, on the consumer side, homeowner insurance discounts may offset some of the pain of the higher purchase price, Reinertson said.

The foundation study looked at 10 communities that already mandate indoor sprinklers and found that the average premium discount was 7 percent.

Sprinklers are triggered by extremely intense heat from flames, not smoke, so a routine burned casserole won't send water showering down from the ceiling, Reinertson said. The water also is head-specific, meaning only the immediate area over the flames will go off.

Sprinklers won't necessarily put out a blaze, but they can buy enough time for a family to escape safely, Reinertson said.

"Even if firefighters are nearby and get there in five minutes, sometimes that's too late," he said. "Five minutes could be all it takes."


----------



## Min&Max

Well it sure is nice that they included us in the article. Fire fighters are the first mentioned and building officials/inspectors are relegated to "other industry professionals".


----------



## jar546

43 posts on a sprinkler topic labeled as a "debate"?  Really?

Where is the passion?

This should have had 200 replies by now.  C'mon folks!


----------



## texas transplant

jar546,

I think part of the reason you don't see 200 posts on this subject right now is it has been debated and debated on this board.  Most folks have decided what side of the debate they are on and realize they probably are not going to change the other side and until there is some additional facts, breakthroughs or whatever nobody is going to change their mind.

Now the article posted by Mark Handler above says that 3000 people a year die in fires.  Another article posted in this thread said that 1020 persons on average die each year in homes that have working smoke detectors.  This may sound mean, cruel or whatever but 3000 people a year is 0.000967 of one percent of the total population of the nation. (that's 3000 people with a total US population of 310,327,062 as I write this)  The census says we are at a rate in 2010 for new homes to number 288,000, at $3000/home for SFR sprinklers that is $288,000 per life saved if sprinklers would save all that died in fires.

If money is no object when it comes to saving lives why not require all new dwelling units to be constructed of Type 1 construction only.  Lets not allow anything in the home that is flammable or at least that hasn't been fire retardent treated.  Require that all bedrooms in the structure have a seperate door to the exterior and a type 1 stair tower if it is above or below grade.  Require a concrete wall and a two hour door between the sleeping rooms and the rest of the house and require it to be closed when the people are asleep.

More people on average die in the United States from the flu each year than die in fires.   Should we require everyone to take the flu shots each year.  Should we have the power to send people to the doctor for a diagnosis if we suspect they might have the flu then isolate them.   Have bathroom police to make sure every one washes their hands each time.  Heck almost 800,000 people a year have to seek medical treatment for dog bites and over half of those are kids under age 18, should we ban dogs, ban contact between dogs and children, make all dogs where a muzzle all the time just in case.  That should cut down the risk.   (tongue in cheek guys and gals I like dogs)

I guess for me the cost of SFR sprinklers doesn't make sense, based on the dollars per life saved.   Heck the money we are talking about if spent on food in the third world countries would probably save more lives per year.

OK I opened my mouth, let me have it, I have been in inspections for almost 30 years and my skin is thick.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> This may sound mean, cruel or whatever but 3000 people a year is 0.000967 of one percent of the total population of the nation. (that's 3000 people with a total US population of 310,327,062 as I write this)


An *acceptable loss* is a sacrifice that is deemed an acceptable cost of doing business. For instance, a church may deem the loss of members who disagree with an evangelical shift to be acceptable if the alternative is to forgo other goals.[1] Anticipated casualties in a military campaign may be held to be acceptable losses as well.[2] A terrorist group may consider the loss of its own members in suicide attacks to be acceptable losses needed to accomplish the mission.[3] The implications of the term may be summed up as "What are we willing to lose to achieve a goal?"

So what is the acceptable loss of people each year in a residential fire? 0, 100 maybe 1,000. What is the goal that is trying to be achieved? Zero loss of life is unrealistic, 1,000 is okay. 2,000 is to many, who says. Life is not fair or equal, residential fires are a fact of life and people will die, Yes it is hard to accept and those in the fire service have a very difficult job and if their goal is zero loss of life in residential fires then they are living in a fantasy dream world


----------



## texas transplant

Amen mtlogcabin


----------



## conarb

Another problem is the fraudulent statistics provided by the sprinkler industry, the only group with the financial incentive to keep and provide statistics; for an example, I'm sure everyone here has read about the 7 deaths from our San Bruno gas pipe explosion, those 7 will be added to the anywhere from 1,000 to 3,000 yearly in-home fire deaths we hear about, yet the first thing to go was the water lines, firemen didn't even have hydrants much less water into homes burning.

Another example is 25 people were added to the 1991 statistics due to our Oakland Hills Fire, the first thing to go was water, this was complicated by the shear incompetence of the various grossly overpaid fire departments.



			
				\ said:
			
		

> For a variety of reasons, the firefighting teams were initially  overwhelmed by the firestorm. The winds were gusting at times in excess  of 70 mph (110 km/h), creating erratic and extreme fire behavior. Flames  took out power lines to seventeen pumping stations in the Oakland water  system. Outside fire teams faced various equipment compatibility issues  such as hydrants having the wrong size outlets for the hoses used by  neighboring counties. Oakland was also not able to communicate with many  mutual aid resources due to antiquated equipment and lack of access to  statewide radio frequencies brought on by the budget restrictions in the  preceding years. In some areas, firefighters simply ran out of water as  there was no power to refill the emptied reservoirs¹


Fire sprinklers couldn't have saved one life in San Bruno or the Berkeley-Oakland Hills, yet those 32 lives will be added to the fraudulent information.

¹ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Hills_firestorm


----------



## peach

If the water system goes (which was my arguement in Orlando in 2006), nothing else much matters.  WHICH IS WHY I DON'T AGREE THAT REDUCING THE PASSIVE ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION IS A GOOD IDEA).   wow, I feel better now.

Enforce fire rated construction if you allow houses close together.  Trying to rely on the active, fire system is a false sense of security for everyone.

*step off my soap box, so I don't break my pelvis*


----------



## texas transplant

Peach,

I am like you.   Let's require fire resistant construction, not rely on a mechanical system of some sort to protect things.   If I build a fire resistant wall, and repair it when it gets damaged, it just sets there and does its job.   A sprinkler system has to be maintained on a regular basis, there are several working parts in every system that can become clogged, or inoperable, or heads that were faulty when installed and it wasn't known.  A properly constructed wall system needs to be inspected when its built and then it should just set there and do its job with no moving parts.


----------



## beach

CBC 903.2.8 *Group R.* An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided throughout all buildiings with Group R fire area.

What is there to debate? Cut loose the dead horse and spit out the sour grapes!:razz: Enforce your new codes!!!!


----------



## peach

in the area, we just had 5 houses succumb to fire... it started outside (cig butts discarded on a deck).. wind picked up.. vinyl siding caught fire.. wind carried fire to adjacent houses... I'm not sure how sprinklers would have been much help.  Houses were really close together and "built to code".. whatever that means.


----------



## incognito

Beach,

Not every state is as screwed up as California. There is plenty to debate and lawmakers to influence with the facts. We are not all as blinded by the money that NFPA, NFSA and the pipe fitter unions have thrown at this issue. This is all about the money. Only fools believe that it will have any significant impact in saving lives.


----------



## beach

Ah, yes...... incognito stooping to insults. Surprise, surprise........

I think your problem is a little more deep seated than RFS......did you get caught playing with matches? You really need to bring this up with your therapist.........

_“The only real problem with ICC is that it is no longer a BUILDING OFFICIAL organization. We sold out to the fire service and we will only have in the building code what they allow us to have.” _

_“From what I understand the fire guy from Tennessee, Shane Ray I believe, is basically advocating that firefighters are idiots for entering any building that is on fire when they know that no one is... “_

_“I am more deeply concerned by the fact that we have turned our organization over to the fire service by giving them voting rights and they have no qualms about buying whatever best suits NFPA and NFSA. We have lost our organization and there does not appear to be any way to gain it back.”_

_“My new found confidence in the fire service overwhelming---not!! They are either idiots or ---not quite honest.” _

_“Do you really think the fire service folks would be so unethical and immoral as to slide this through without disclosing ALL the info? I mean after all these are the same people who routinely spike their wages right before retirement and screw Joe Citizen.”_

_“The fire guys really hated it when they had to answer that question. They try to qualify their answer with various degrees of BS but the answer is still ZERO.”_

_“They will cite some bogus reason for the information not being relevant but in the end the "need" for sprinklers is all about the obscene amount of money the sprinkler industry will make.”_


----------



## mtlogcabin

> What is there to debate?


Plenty like global warming and green codes not every one thinks that all the "facts" are in and there is nothing left to debate.

Figures lie and liars figure as conarb pointed out in his post. Acurate data is needed to make rational non-emotional decisions when it comes to adopting codes. The code world has come to a point of basing decisions on what "feels" good and that the codes have to protect people from themselves.


----------



## beach

My point is that it is now IN THE CODE. Debate all you want, but it seems like it would be more productive to debate it at the code hearings instead of on this board, where we repeatedly hear the same argument from both sides.... over and over and over. When all you have left is to throw insults, it starts looking pretty petty.........



> If the code and common sense do not jive I will go with common sense...


There are code sections that I don't agree with but I still enforce them because that is my job. If inspectors start using their personal opinions (common sense?) while performing inspections, they are doing a diservice to their employer, themselves, and the public.


----------



## texas transplant

But Beach,  some of us live in states that the legislature has actually prohibited new codes for SFR sprinlklers.   There is another thing too,......we don't have to adopt or buy the cow's new code, we can stay right where we are and see what happens.

We are enforcing our code here, it just doesn't include SFR sprinklers.

I also think that one way to encourage change at ICC is to not buy their new codes and products when they have dumb things in them.

The other thing is, if my vote at the hearing is not going to count because they allow special interest to stuff the ballot box, I am not going to spend my money to go vote.   I will go get training that ICC does not get a cut of the profits, to keep my certs up, buy what few things I have too that I can only get from ICC, but thats it.

Personally if California is the leader in cutting edge on codes, I will stick to the model T version I use.

And if the ICC was a real business that had real competition for its customers, it would not still be in business today.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Our state has not adopted the 09 IRC they are still debating the merits. The code hearings and adoption process has been tarnished over the last decade so states and local jurisdictions are not willing to accept the codes in their entirety without review just because the ICC published them.

I remember back in 94 the SBCCI swiming pool code included a new alarm requirement for doors leading from the residence directly to the pool. It specificaly spelled out the DB levels, how long it operated after the door closed and some other specifics. When we tried to enforce the adopted code there was not a manufacture in the world that made a system to comply with what was adopted. Point being code hearings are not perfect and all the information provide during the process may not be accurate especially if there is an agenda (finacial or social) behind getting the requirement into law


----------



## beach

Do whatever you want! We have cities here with RFS requirements since the seventies..... all those "problems" (theories) you people cite, just don't happen. In California, I believe we call it "empirical evidense". But gee, us goofy Californians are just plain crazy stupid, right?

It's great you're enforcing your codes, good for you! If you want to pick and choose what code you want to use for what you think is best for everybody, feel free! I'm not going to judge....


----------



## conarb

Beach:

I wish you fire guys would expend 1/10th the time, money, and energy attempting to ban the engineered wood products that are threatening to harm you, and the foams that are threatening to gas you to death as you have spent on the RFS requirement, you should with all the money we are paying you.


----------



## texas transplant

beach said:
			
		

> Do whatever you want! We have cities here with RFS requirements since the seventies..... all those "problems" (theories) you people cite, just don't happen. In California, I believe we call it "empirical evidense". But gee, us goofy Californians are just plain crazy stupid, right? It's great you're enforcing your codes, good for you! If you want to pick and choose what code you want to use for what you think is best for everybody, feel free! I'm not going to judge....


That's just it Beach, we are doing what we are HIRED to do and legally allowed to do.   Enforce the codes adopted by the Feds, State and City.

I stand by my earlier post (again call me cruel or heartless) but when we start talking about spending the type of money required to save 3000 people a year (and I don't think even with sprinklers you will save them all and those are NFPA numbers not mine) it is a waste of money.   People will die in fires each and every year and there is nothing we can do about it.  Again those 3000 people represent 0.000967 of one percent of the entire nation.  If you really want to save as many lives as possible "feed the children" for 40 cents a day, you will save a lot more lives each and every year.

I do not pick and choose the codes I will enforce, the Federal, State and City governments pick them for me.  And just because the ICC wrote a new code doesn't mean that the new one in better than the older ones.  The ICC is fallible just like any other big corporation.   Hell look at the number of cars Toyota had to recall, big corporations make mistakes too.  The "Mini Soda" and Baltimore hearings proved that the ICC isn't interested in whats right, its interested in what makes them money.  I spent my personal money to be at Mini Soda, never felt so cheated in my life and haven't bothered to go to anything run by ICC since.

I didn't say that Californians are goofy, but I will stay where I am and not head toward California to live.

Please post the "empirical evidence" about how SFR sprinklers are so good from the California info.   I just haven't seen anything yet that impresses me or makes sense.

And by the way Beach I think you are judging me as being dumb, stupid or ignorant because I don't agree with you, but thats cool, all those words describe me and if you are picking on me you are leaving everyone else alone.   

In closing I will agree to disagree with you and welcome any information that you think might change my mind.  I just haven't seen data that makes me think SFR sprinklers are worth the cost.  That's my opinion, feel free to try and change me, but give me the data.


----------



## vegas paul

I hope this doesn't sound like I'm defending the ICC (I'm not!), but the ICC didn't put RFS into the code, the voting membership did.  Now, we all know that not all members get to vote, only those with travel budgets big enough to attend the hearings, but that's an entirely different issue (and one worth more debate than this one, perhaps).

So, since the membership voted (based on an inordinate number of voting members that are usually not in attendance), you can't hold the ICC responsible for this solely.  If you want the code changed or reverted back to what is was, then change it - the ICC can't change the code even if they wanted to!


----------



## texas transplant

Vegas Paul,

I agree, but even with the amendment about not accepting money to go to the hearings etc. they haven't fixed the problem.   They need to define better who a voting member can be.   I do not for one minute believe that the amendment not allowing you to accept a free trip etc. to the hearings will deter anyone and I don't see how ICC can enforce this rule anyhow.  From what I see of the amendment, I just have to plan a little farther ahead to be able to stuff the ballot box at the hearings.

I also think that yes the membership has let the ICC get out of hand (and yes, I am part of that membership and watched it happen too).   No one had a clue how quickly a monster organization like the ICC could have the problems it did.  And we don't have a clue how to rein it in now.  The horse has gotten the bit between its teeth and is running away with us.  I still remember my legacy code, there was an office with a real person in it 2 hours away, I had and knew who my rep was, and I could talk to the president of the code board and the CEO of the organization.  Guess I am just a small town farm boy longing for the better days.


----------



## beach

Texas Transplant,



My opinion of you is not dumb, stupid, or ignorant…I really don’t know why you would think that,  I don’t judge people by what state they are from, or if they agree with me or not.



Again, if you are enforcing the codes as adopted…that’s great! Regardless if you enforce RFS or not.



Most of the opponents of RFS, in my opinion, didn’t and or don’t really know anything about RFS because they were not used to seeing them, this was obvious when this debate started on the ICC BB last year. Opponents were making incorrect negative statements left and right about RFS, these statements were from code officials, contractors, inspectors, etc. Every time they were corrected by a proponent, they would take a different tact until it just became bashing the fire service in general. Looking back, it’s pretty embarrassing for them, in my opinion. That’s where I find the ignorance.



As I’ve said before, most in California have had RFS requirements for at least twenty years and a few, more than thirty years. The opponents start throwing out theories to try to prove a point when they really don’t have any long term experience. The “empirical evidence” is that we have had RFS long enough to know about any major problems…. And we haven’t had any! How can I provide data for something that hasn’t happened?



I won’t even try to make sense of the conspiracy theorists, for obvious (I hope..) reasons.

As far as feeding the hungry, we should all be doing that regardless of what we think about RFS.


----------



## incognito

First, I would not disagree that RFS work as designed and that they will, for the most part, sit there benignly until called upon to operate. But the fact is that based on the number of fires in any given year the cost far exceeds the benefits. If there was truly a need and benefit the insurance companies would have been all over this years ago. As it is, even for those companies that offer a premium reduction for sprinkler installation, the cost of the sprinklers will never be "payed back" by premium savings. Why?? Because the number of fires in which they have a pay out is inconsequential.

Secondly the fire service likes to throw out the 3,000 fire deaths per year and eluding to how RFS will result in saving many lives per year. Bullstuff!!! It will be several decades before even a small fraction will show up in their statistics. It is the older housing stock that is going up in flames on a regular basis, not the homes built in the last 30 years. And with the widespread installation of AFCI's we are going to see even fewer fires starting. RFS's are nothing more than a product with marginal value that has been marketed to a sector who will basically rally behind virtually anything that the Godlike NFPA deems necessary to provide for health, safety and welfare of the ignorant public. Nothing more than corporate greed at its very worst.


----------



## texas transplant

Beach,

I didn't take it personally and did not intent anything I said personally.   

It just shows that we are on opposite sides of the debate and neither of us are likely to change. Most of that is our individual perspectives on the matter.  For me, a big part of that is, if it has parts that have to operate after setting for an extended period of time and if it requires any sort of maintenance to make sure it works, it ain't gonna work when you need it, because most people will not maintain it or take care of it the way it should be. I also look at the millions of sprinkler heads and components that have been recalled over the last few years.  We have the manpower in my City to make sure the commercial and multi-family systems are maintained each year, but I don't have manpower to go to each single family home and make sure they have been maintained, unless the City fathers really increase my staff and budget, and let me charge a fee to do it that won't be popular or cheap.

The other thing is I do think that the ICC is broken as far as the way the code gets modified.   And I am cynical enough to think that the fire sprinkler industry went to the effort to push through sprinklers, not to save lives, but to grow the industry and have a captive nation to sell to.

Yall have a good weekend.  Its great weather here, and there are some great outdoor concerts to be heard, think I will sneak out early today.


----------



## Uncle Bob

It's amazing that this sprinker debate is still going on; long after the Mini-soda hearings. It has been the most divisive topic on both the old ICC BB and this forum. 

And, yet it has also brought many new members to both forums; especially folks from the Fire Services; many of which came and stayed. It is also responsible for more interest in the Fire Codes; and, has contributed to having more knowledgeable fire service people here to help answer fire code questions.

It has brought about new friendships and a has contributed to the growth of our group,

Thanks sprinklers,

Uncle Bob


----------



## pwood

ub,

 it's the sprinkle down effect:mrgreen:


----------



## beach

You so smooooooooooth, UB!!!


----------



## Rio

Plenty of places in California have not adopted the RSF requirement................................


----------



## beach

Rio,

Considering the 2010 CBC (requiring RFS) does not become effective until Jan. 1st, 2010 you are probably correct, most cities are in the adoptive process as we speak, getting ready for Jan. 1st. (2010)

If you meant that "plenty of places" in Calif. are not adopting the RFS section of the 2010 CBC, you are misinformed.....they can't make the code less restrictive and "plenty" (at least in SoCal) have some sort of RFS in their adoptive ordinances anyway.


----------



## ggmarch

i found out something pretty interesting from an uncle who sells homeowners insurance in ohio. the local firemarshal(his cousin) in a very small town where my uncle covered 25 homes. apparently there is a rating system whether state wide or locally, (not sure) that rates fire-response-times. the community fire departments get a score, higher rating = quicker response times. slower times = worse scoring until, like this particular community, they become "Un-Rated." at that point, my uncle's insurance company dropped all the policies since they were linked to a "rated-community." once the community became unrated, their insurance premium went up 5 times. most could not afford this, nor could they easily sell their homes since insurance companies don't hand out mortgages without homeowners and when the insurance premium is more than the mortgage on a 60 grand home......yadda yadda......

interesting tidbit is that the scoring system is weighted. if responding to a building with a sprinkler system, the marshal claims that the response time is allowed to be a percentage slower than the time it takes to get to a building without a sprinkler.  therefore giving the fire department a better score and less chance of losing their rating and therefore less chance of the insurance company dropping the homeowners........

moral of this story, if we don't get it one way, we're getting it another. the idea that "one can't make everyone happy" is long gone.......the new idea is "i'll get the government to force them to be."


----------

