# Firefighter group pushes for sprinklers in new homes



## mark handler (Dec 14, 2011)

Firefighter group pushes for sprinklers in new homes

By Martine Powers |  Globe Staff     December 14, 2011

http://bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/12/14/firefighter-group-pushes-for-sprinklers-new-homes/Msux41E3KCBkPoosy9sdRL/story.html

When firefighter Phillip J. Tammaro was 2 years old, he was trapped in a fire caused by a gas explosion that burned more than 35 percent of his body. This year, he underwent his 19th surgery related to the injury.

Tammaro maintains that the burns could have been prevented - or at least reduced - if his house had been equipped with a sprinkler system.

“It’s worth every penny to protect our residents from this kind of experience,’’ said Tammaro, 42, who works as a coordinator for the International Association of Fire Fighters Burn Foundation.

Firefighters and home builders argued yesterday at a Board of Building Regulations and Standards hearing on amending the state building code to allow a requirement for sprinklers in newly constructed homes.

At the hearing, held in the State House, much of the debate came down to cost: Officials from fire departments around the state argued that the sprinkler systems, which can cost thousands of dollars to install, would save lives and limit property damage.

But developers and construction managers said that sprinklers have not been proven to be any more effective in saving lives than smoke detectors. The added cost, they continued, would discourage potential homeowners from settling in Massachusetts, and would raise the cost of affordable housing.

“We’d drive a lot of people right out of the ability to get that home,’’ said Doug Pizzi, a spokesman for the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts.

The proposed amendment to the state’s model code would not mandate that sprinklers be installed in every newly constructed one- or two-family home. Instead, it would be part of a “stretch code,’’ which allows cities and towns to adopt such a mandate if they so choose.

So far, California, Maryland, and South Carolina are the only states that have enacted a statewide measure to require fire sprinklers in newly built homes. The Board of Building Regulations and Standards will probably vote on the amendment in January.

At a press conference before the hearing in front of the Massachusetts Firefighter Memorial, James M. Shannon, the president of the National Fire Protection Association, said sprinklers help to extinguish or retard fires, which would allow more time for families to evacuate, and would also reduce risks to firefighters entering burning buildings.

The risk of dying by fire is reduced by 80 percent when a sprinkler system is installed in a home, he said.

“This is really about not only public safety, but it’s also a huge firefighter safety issue,’’ Shannon said.

The hearing came less than a week after a Worcester firefighter was killed when a three-decker home collapsed on him. The death of Jon D. Davies Sr. was at the forefront of many people’s minds during the hearing, as those on both sides of the issue paused for a moment of silence to honor him. Supporters of the amendment said his death may have been prevented by a sprinkler.

“We urge you to take our solemn sacrifice this week to heart as you enact this code,’’ said Edward A. Kelly, president of the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts.

Tammaro said the need for sprinklers is even greater now, because new environmentally friendly buildings often use lighter synthetic materials that burn easily.

“It’s along the same lines as, years ago, putting airbags in automobiles. No one really thought much about that,’’ Tammaro said. “Now you wouldn’t really buy a new car today if you didn’t have airbags in it.’’

But developers, construction managers, and homeowners came out in force, arguing that the high costs will hurt, not help, in a less-than-desirable housing market.

Homeowners should have a choice to spend the extra money if they feel it’s necessary, they argued.

Pizzi said the state should focus its fire-safety efforts on ensuring that all homes in the state have working smoke alarms, which would also help keep firefighters safe, since they would not have to enter a burning house if it had been evacuated, he said.

Pizzi pointed to a statistic to bolster his point: In homes with working smoke detectors, residents have a 99.45 percent chance of getting out of the house alive. It’s hard to improve on that figure, he said.

“We really think it’s a solution in search of a problem,’’ he said.


----------



## steveray (Dec 14, 2011)

I'd buy a car without airbags.....probably seatbelts too....I already own a few....


----------



## permitguy (Dec 14, 2011)

> ensuring that all homes in the state have working smoke alarms, which would also help keep firefighters safe, since they would not have to enter a burning house if it had been evacuated


Guess I didn't get that memo . . .

As for the rest, it seems pretty typical of the debate we always see on this topic.  Thanks for posting.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 14, 2011)

> Tammaro maintains that the burns could have been prevented - or at least reduced - if his house had been equipped with a sprinkler system.


I wonder if his current residence or fire station where he sleeps 1/3 of his life has sprinklers?



> “It’s worth every penny to protect our residents from this kind of experience,’’


His pennies or some elses?



> Tammaro said the need for sprinklers is even greater now, because new environmentally friendly buildings often use lighter synthetic materials that burn easily.


I knew those greenies where to blame for bigger fires.



> “Now you wouldn’t really buy a new car today if you didn’t have airbags in it.’’


The Feds took that choice away from everyone.


----------



## steveray (Dec 14, 2011)

(Pardon my lack of facts in this post)......Mass. is actually really agressive with some of this stuff...after the station fire, they made just about every bar I have seen put sprinklers in...or close.....on all real estate transfers, they require smokes and CO compliance, and the FM makes inspections at 1 and 2 family dwellings under construction....( I used to live there and still visit friends frequently)


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 14, 2011)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Tammaro said the need for sprinklers is even greater now, because new environmentally friendly buildings often use lighter synthetic materials that burn easily. I knew those greenies where to blame for bigger fires. QUOTE]
> 
> There is truth in that statement - see UL test burn in 2009 of Legacy vs. Modern Furnishings
> 
> ...


----------



## mark handler (Dec 14, 2011)

Firefighters seek sprinkler requirements for one- and two-family homes

By Kyle Cheney

State House News Service

 Posted Dec 13, 2011 @ 04:05 PM

http://www.tauntongazette.com/breaking/x278312369/Firefighters-seek-sprinkler-requirements-for-one-and-two-family-homes

BOSTON —

Firefighters, mourning the loss of one of their own in a Worcester house fire last week, pleaded with state public safety officials Tuesday to give cities and towns the authority to require sprinkler systems in new one- or two-family homes.

But they ran into stiff opposition from homebuilders, realtors, engineers and contractors.

Home builders ripped the proposal as a “special interest driven” requirement that could put home prices out of reach for more families and would do little to improve safety. Rather, they argued, emphasis on existing safety measures – smoke, heat and carbon monoxide detectors, as well as non-flammable materials in home construction – would better serve public safety, and they noted that home buyers have the option to install sprinklers should they choose.

The two sides clashed at a hearing held by the Board of Building Standards and Regulations, which took testimony on a proposed change to a newly adopted statewide building code that could require mandatory sprinkler systems in new one- and two-family homes. The local-option proposal, offered by State Fire Marshal Stephen Coan, would amend a building code adopted by the board in August that excluded home sprinkler requirements.

The National Fire Prevention Association and the International Code Council have included home sprinklers as part of model building codes they recommend to states as minimum standards.

Only two states, California and South Carolina, have adopted regulations requiring the use of sprinklers in new one- and two-family dwellings, according to supporters of the requirement. Maryland’s counties have also independently adopted sprinkler requirements, they added, estimating that 400 communities around the country have also adopted such requirements.

Advocates for including sprinklers in these homes contended that they would prevent injuries to residents and firefighters. Sprinklers, they said, contain fires rapidly and are often effective in extinguishing or minimizing fires even before firefighters arrive.

“Citizens and firefighters should not be dying in residential structure fires,” said Paul Zbikowski, president of the Fire Chiefs Association of Massachusetts, who was joined prior to the hearing by the heads of the National Fire Prevention Association, Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Call/Volunteer Firefighters Association and the Fire Prevention Association of Massachusetts.

Arguing that homebuilders and realtors are “putting a price on a human life,” Zbikowski said mandatory sprinkler systems would preserve “the most basic level of homeland security – the safety of families in the homes in which they live.”

James Shannon, president of the National Fire Prevention Association, estimated that sprinkler systems decrease the risk of death in home fires by 80 percent and reduce the risk of property damage by 74 percent. In 54,000 fires in Massachusetts one- and two-family homes over the last decade, he estimated, more than 2,300 firefighters and 1,500 civilians were injured and more than $753 million in property damage occurred.

Arguments about the cost of sprinkler systems, he argued, fail to account for the cost of injuries and deaths.

At a press conference prior to the hearing, proponents of sprinklers were joined by Kevin Gallagher, fire chief of Acushnet and a member of the Board of Building Regulations and Standards.

Opponents of the sprinkler mandate rejected the statistics, contending that they fail to indicate whether homes that experienced fires included working smoke detectors or other fire safety mechanisms. Building commissioners and home developers took exception to a suggestion that they were building “substandard” housing and suggested that keeping the sprinklers as optional for homeowners is a matter of personal choice and freedom.

Some critics of the sprinkler proposal, including contractors and subcontractors, emphasized that backers were seeking a change to the state’s “stretch code,” which must be adopted by individual communities before taking effect. They argued that the local-option would “fragment” the building code, creating different requirements in different cities and towns.

“We always have and continue to support stringent fire safety code changes when they make sense, such as smoke alarms,” said Michael McDowell, president of the Home Builders Association of Massachusetts, in testimony submitted at the hearing. McDowell contended sprinkler systems would add $10,000 to $15,000 to the cost of housing for Massachusetts residents and could cost more for maintenance.

One home builder described the mandate as “the biggest tax ever put on the construction of new homes.”

Copyright 2011 The Taunton Gazette. Some rights reserved


----------



## Alias (Dec 14, 2011)

And SB 726 is stalled in the Transportation Committee here in CA.

I guess I won't be getting any permits for new homes anytime in the future.      Will the state compensate me when I lose my job due to building inactivity?  Don't think so..............


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 14, 2011)

> my point of contention is to regulate the furnishings ---- to reduce the fuel load/ fire growth rate


Agree 100% and it would help in all housing stock new and old.

I don't have a problem with the code requireing gypsum board on all basement floor/ceiling assemblies to address the early failure of exposed I-Joist construction in a fire.


----------



## pyrguy (Dec 14, 2011)

I only did commercial work in South Carolina so I did not keep up with state codes requirements for 1 and 2 family stuff. BUT, IIRC SC did not / will not adopt the 2009 IRC and is thinking about putting off the 2012.


----------



## JBI (Dec 14, 2011)

steveray, just so you know... The Station Nightclub was in Rhode Island. Massachusetts was aggressively pursuing sprinkler installations for some time prior to the Station fire.


----------



## permitguy (Dec 14, 2011)

> Thus in the past conversations about SF residential sprinkler systems , my point of contention is to regulate the furnishings ---- to reduce the fuel load/ fire growth rate or use another approach - fire sprinkler systems.


Even if that could be done, how would you propose to accomplish it?  Do you want the IRC to regulate furniture?



> Just wanted to provide an educational opportunity to show that the building construction isn't the issue, it is the fuel load that people are putting into their homes, offices, and businesses that are creating the issues.


Building construction is a *huge* part of the issue.  Click "watch the presentation" at the bottom of this link, and you'll see that UL has tested more than furnishings:  http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/offerings/industries/buildingmaterials/fire/fireservice/lightweight/

Also, take a closer look at your link from above.  It isn't discussing only the furnishings, but also the architecture (larger homes, open floor plans, etc.).


----------



## mtlogcabin (Dec 14, 2011)

> Even if that could be done, how would you propose to accomplish it?


CPSC

*CPSC Overview*
​The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death from thousands of types of consumer products under the agency's jurisdiction. The CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical, or mechanical hazard or can injure children. The CPSC's work to ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters, and household chemicals - contributed significantly to the 30 percent decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 30 years.


----------



## steveray (Dec 15, 2011)

Yep.....I know that....but not too far out of Boston, where all of those decisions are made......I  knew I wasn't presenting "facts", I just have seen alot of places put in sprinklers, not part of any remodel, and some smaller local mom and pop places close their doors....I am all about improving safety as we improve our buildings, but to jam some of these things down peoples throats is not the way to go about it....4 years ago I worked in a town where the high school was 3X over the allowable height and area with the sprinklers it didn't have...they then put them in as part of a $30 mil remodel....and some firewalls....



			
				JBI said:
			
		

> steveray, just so you know... The Station Nightclub was in Rhode Island. Massachusetts was aggressively pursuing sprinkler installations for some time prior to the Station fire.


----------



## permitguy (Dec 15, 2011)

> CPSC


Right.  I wonder what the cost per square foot of this fancy new furniture will be?  I'm really excited to see their methods for building modern electronics and appliances without plastics.  Maybe we should just define new construction as a "consumer product" and turn all enforcement over the CPSC.  I guess they should also outlaw the modern architectural features that the UL study said are contributing to the problem.  No more open floor plans with vaulted ceilings.  Better get rid of the lightweight construction materials as well.  Back to the post WWII ranch homes built from dimension lumber and sheathed with 1x.

Come on, folks.  The cat is out of the bag on this.  For or against a sprinkler mandate, you can't honestly believe we are going back to the 1950s in terms of fire-loading, compartmentalization, and use of construction materials.


----------



## Builder Bob (Dec 15, 2011)

I know, but it at least gives people an option against sprinkler systems.......


----------



## FM William Burns (Dec 15, 2011)

Sheesh.........anyway I'm still an advocate for a compromise where the dwelling construction/separation, notification and egress were enhanced. Heck here in my state they amended everything that would protect the hazard out. Hope your new residential stock has at least something since we may not see any hope until 015. And if I could run into that cat I'de skin it.


----------



## That Inspector Guy (Dec 23, 2011)

22 years of firefighting, I never dragged a dead body out of a sprinklered building....For the nay-sayers, why dont we just abolish ALL building codes if you are so worried about Government Intrusion?


----------



## Msradell (Dec 23, 2011)

That Inspector Guy said:
			
		

> 22 years of firefighting, I never dragged a dead body out of a sprinklered building....For the nay-sayers, why dont we just abolish ALL building codes if you are so worried about Government Intrusion?


Have you ever dragged from a home that had working smoke detectors?  I haven't nor have I ever heard of it happening.  I've only had it happened in homes without detectors or ones where the detectors were not operational!


----------



## forensics (Dec 24, 2011)

Have you ever dragged from a home that had working smoke detectors? I haven't nor have I ever heard of it happening. I've only had it happened in homes without detectors or ones where the detectors were not operational!

Oh yeah the old and tired argument that smoke detectors are enough THIS IS LAUGHABLE IF IT WERENT SO TRAGIC !!

http://healthland.time.com/2011/03/25/children-sleep-through-fire-alarms-study-shows/


----------



## forensics (Dec 24, 2011)

http://www.chhsblog.com/2010/02/smoke-alarms-don%E2%80%99t-always-wake-a-sleeping-child/

If smokes work so well why are we still dying at a rate of 3800 souls a year !!  NAHB = FOOLS


----------



## Paradox (Jan 3, 2012)

Can we suggest reducing the sprinkler system to be part of the plumbing system. Looped so stagnate water is not an issue and eliminating unnecessary valves, tap fees and hopefully invasions of privacy. Sprinkler heads required only in areas with open flame/heating equipment and/or sleeping potential (the self medicated smoker) of new construction. Considering that most fires start in the kitchen or a heating situation. We have eliminated residential sprinklers from our codes back to 2000 IBC levels. Cost is the factor in both lives and cost of construction. We see this issue as being right behind financing in terms of preventing the building industry from bouncing back.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 3, 2012)

Paradox said:
			
		

> Can we suggest reducing the sprinkler system to be part of the plumbing system. Looped so stagnate water is not an issue and eliminating unnecessary valves, tap fees and hopefully invasions of privacy. Sprinkler heads required only in areas with open flame/heating equipment and/or sleeping potential (the self medicated smoker) of new construction. Considering that most fires start in the kitchen or a heating situation. We have eliminated residential sprinklers from our codes back to 2000 IBC levels. Cost is the factor in both lives and cost of construction. We see this issue as being right behind financing in terms of preventing the building industry from bouncing back.


Those ideas are all great and I wish we good implement them. I also agree that we do not want to choke the industry during these trying times. I still want sprinks in homes.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 3, 2012)

First, welcome to the forum!

Looped systems fed off domestic supply are already permissible.  It's a matter of educating water purveyors who are still confused and want a separate tap w/ associated fees.  The number of sprinkler heads in a typical residential system are already pretty minimal.  I'm not sure scaling them back as you describe would create significant savings.

Cost is what it comes down to, and that can't be debated in a "one size fits all" way on this board.  Every market has its own factors to consider.  We've seen figures from <$2,000 to >$250,0000 for a single system in this forum alone.  The only way for you to know whether this will hamper your recovery locally is to check the numbers for yourself.  I'm in a major metropolitan area with materials easily available, several contractors in competition with each other, and water purveyors who (so far) aren't doing anything crazy.  It's hard to believe sprinklers would have much of an effect here, but not everyone has this scenario.

If sprinklers are ever widely accepted for residential structures, I contend it will be more of a domino effect.  One jurisdiction will lead to another as they realize sprinklers weren't the end of the world for their neighbors.  We're several years away from that happening.  The code change was the beginning of this, not the end.


----------



## incognito (Jan 4, 2012)

There is absolutely no rational justification for sprinklers when NFPA states that smoke detectors are over 99% effective in preventing fire related deaths in residential homes. The push for sprinklers is nothing more than a money grab by the sprinkler industry and the fire service folks are little more than gullible pawns. If sprinklers would have been installed in every home built since 2000 the actual number of lives saved last year would be insignificant. If forensics number of 3800 is correct for last year, there still would have been far in excess of 3700 deaths last year. Sprinklers are an expensive solution for a non-existant problem. Now if you really want to have an immediate impact on the number of lives unnecessarily lost each year, cut all speed limits in half. Nearly 40,000 lives are lost every year and many more life-time injuries sustained for no other reason than our "need for speed". But of course there is no money in it for the fire folks.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 4, 2012)

> NAHB = FOOLS


NAME CALLING = NOT HELPING



> There is absolutely no rational justification for sprinklers


There has been plenty of rational justification presented on both sides of the argument, including counter points to every point you just repeated for the 100th time.  You are just too stubborn to give even the slightest "win" to the side you disagree with.


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 4, 2012)

It is easy to see both sides.

I'm sure that the cost to save even a fraction of 3800 lives may seem like a lot, I mean what if it keeps a home owner from getting granite counters, or stain master carpet, or hardwood floors with oriental area rugs. I mean what is a life worth?

The flip side, for me, is why we would allow the government to nanny people to death with regulation after regulation. They shouldn't but it feels like a hard pill to swallow when they readily accept all the industry driven green codes which save no lives, line pocket books, and is all based on fraudulent science.


----------



## incognito (Jan 5, 2012)

I will not give them a win--they will have to earn it and I will not be swayed by their campaign of misinformation. They tell half the story and assume that because they represent the fire service that everyone will accept what they claim as being truthful. The tired old rambling of what homeowners may choose over a rfs while putting their family at risk is nothing more than emotional sensationalism. Yet many of these fanatics continue to reside in homes, with their loved ones, without the benefit of rfs. Yeah, it is not required by code but they adamantly chant that anyone in a home without rfs is putting the lives of loved ones at risk. Why will they not provide their own families with a level of protection that they claim is so badly needed? Well its either because they know they are spewing BS or they are not willing to spend the necessary dollars to safeguard the lives of their loved ones. So now we know what dollar value the fire service places on a life and it certainly is not going to interfere in their purchase of their new boat, truck or Harley. They can't even convince people their product is necessary without turning to emotional blackmail.

Thankfully intelligent code officials and the NAHB are out setting the record straight and pointing their elected officials in the right direction.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, SHEESH.


----------



## knightj (Jan 5, 2012)

It seems odd to me that in my 35 years in the construction industry, the last 20 in code inforcement that I have yet to see a SFD with a sprinkler system.

May I raise a question? How many persons that are either posting, reading or advocating sprinklers have them in your house.

Long live freedom of choice!!!


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2012)

Our former FC installed them in his new house. He had a lightning strike about a year later (no one home) the FD showed up and put the fire out. Not one head discharged because there were no heads in the area of the fire, a mechanical room, but the smoke damage throughout the house was significant.

Will the help? Yes

Are they the save all? No

Outlaw drunkenesss and smoking in home might save more lives.

http://news.yahoo.com/heavy-drinking-ups-odds-death-house-fire-130805795.html

THURSDAY, Sept. 15 (HealthDay News) -- Drinking heavily may increase a person's risk of dying in a house fire, researchers warn.

When cigarettes are involved the risk of death is even higher, the Australian investigators added. They noted, however, some victims died needlessly and could have survived had they reacted in time.

In conducting the study, the team analyzed coroners' records for 95 fire victims in Australia. The researchers found that 58 percent of the victims tested positive on blood-alcohol tests -- often with extremely high alcohol levels.

Most of the victims in the study were alone at the time of the fire. Nearly half of the drunk victims were sleeping.

The study, published in the September issue of the _Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs_, also revealed that the drunk victims were less likely than those who were sober to have had obstacles preventing their escape from the fire, such as barred windows or a blocked exit.

As a result, at least some of them might have survived had they been roused in time, the report indicated. Smoke detectors or having other people in the house who were sober could also have prevented some of the deaths, the authors pointed out in a journal news release.

Smoking was the most common culprit behind the deaths of the drunk victims. The study found that victims who had been drinking were roughly 4.5 times more likely to have died in fires that involved "smoking materials," like cigarette butts.

"A key message is that smoking and drinking together constitute a high-risk activity, even in your own home," the study's lead researcher, Dorothy Bruck of Victoria University in Melbourne, said in the news release.

Aside from not combining smoking while drinking, the researchers advised that people can help reduce their fire risks in a number of ways, including:


If you're drinking, always have someone else in the house who stays sober.Install smoke detectors in bedrooms or living areas, in addition to hallways.

If you smoke, buy fire-safe cigarettes that self-extinguish.

The study authors noted that this high percentage of drunk house-fire victims is consistent with what's been revealed in other studies from the United States, Europe and Canada.


----------



## jj1289 (Jan 5, 2012)

I feel sprinkles should not be required in new SFR, except for a few exceptions.  A larger number of the fires in SFR are occuring in older homes such as ballon-framed construction.  Newer homes have draftstopping and fireblocking requirements to address some of these issues and smoke alarms do help trumendously.  An area that I would be in favor of sprinklers in a new home is if the home is using engineered I-joists with no protection, tests have shown these framing members will burn through in approximately 8 minutes were as conventional framing takes a lot longer.  How do you address the maintenance and testing requirements.  Once the system is in very few people will inspect and test the system on a regular basis and the ones that do not inspect or test my end up having a false scene of security.

That is my two cents


----------



## permitguy (Jan 5, 2012)

> I will not give them a win--they will have to earn it and I will not be swayed by their campaign of misinformation.


Yeah, we've got it.  Codes are an assault on our freedom and people should be allowed to build with whatever and however they want.  Or most codes are okay, but sprinklers are somehow taking things too far.  Blah, blah, blah.



> May I raise a question? How many persons that are either posting, reading or advocating sprinklers have them in your house.


I've never built my own home.  Nobody here has been advocating for code required retrofitting of existing homes with RFS.  If I built a new house, they'd be present.

The mistake both of you make is assuming that the fire service perceives this as a possible overnight success.  We don't think this will end fire deaths next year, or five or fifty years from now.  This is a big picture issue.  A "new" house will be "old" someday.  An "old" house will be torn down (or suffer some other fate) and made "new" someday.  It's inevitable.  Light frame wood homes rarely stand for mulitple centuries.  If we start now, we'll eventually have sprinklers protecting most homes.  Once again, you'll never finish a race you don't start.

Flame on.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 5, 2012)

> Once the system is in very few people will inspect and test the system on a regular basis and the ones that do not inspect or test my end up having a false scene of security.


If you educate yourself on the simplicity of the systems we're talking about, you'll see this as the non-issue that it is.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 5, 2012)

> If you educate yourself on the simplicity of the systems we're talking about, you'll see this as the non-issue that it is.


I agree if you can keep it to the simple systems. We al know of overzealous code officials (fire & building) who demand more than what is adopted.

The FDC question on another post, or an area may have low water pressure or fire flow that today you can build a house because it is not part of the equation but because a sprinkler is now required you can't build the house with taking those factors into consideration in order to have a working RFS system

If a sprinkler designer is involved his insurance will most likely prevent him from designing and/or installing a system with an in-adequate water supply.

What is in the IRC can be easily achieved on most municiple water supplies.

Will the plumbers be allowed to install such a system or will liscensing laws require sprinkler installers.

There are many variables around the country and sprinklering was always in the IRC as an appendix that could have been adopted on the local or state level but it was easier for the fire service to move together nationally with the help of the sprinkler industry and get it moved into the code body and now those jurisdictions that are ammending it out are being preceived as not caring about saving lives or protecting the firefighters that serve the public.

Permitguy is correct it will take 50 to 100 years before you will even know if the system might be effective.

less than 2% of my sfr housing stock has been built in the last 9 years. the majoriy are 80 to 90 years old and will be ther another 75 or 80 thank to "historical building" laws


----------



## gbhammer (Jan 5, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> If you educate yourself on the simplicity of the systems we're talking about, you'll see this as the non-issue that it is.


Absolutely agree, not much different than plumbing a home. A lot less difficult than changing batteries is an old smoke detector. Sheeeesh

And so much less invasive than telling you your killing the planet and have to keep your thermostat programed a certain way. Sheeeeeeeeeeesh


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 5, 2012)

Ok...I'll be quick....the maintenance is even easy on a 13D system...just crack a valve and allow a few gallons of water to run into a sump or bucket.

Regarding the overkill.....(AGREE) no need for a FDC on a 13D or R313 unless there is no water available (at all) in a housing development......Ok done...back at it fellas


----------



## beach (Jan 5, 2012)

FM, you left out the "Sheesh"...........


----------



## Msradell (Jan 5, 2012)

Why don't the organization's pushing SFD fire sprinklers turn their efforts to making sure that such devices are required in all multiple unit dwellings first? There are still many jurisdictions where this is not a requirement and it's a much larger safety issue than it is in SFDs.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 6, 2012)

That must be regional.  It's been many, many years since I've seen a multi-family dwelling built without them.  It's been a requirement to install sprinklers throughout any building with a group R fire area since the '03 IBC.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Jan 6, 2012)

permitguy said:
			
		

> That must be regional. It's been many, many years since I've seen a multi-family dwelling built without them. It's been a requirement to install sprinklers throughout any building with a group R fire area since the '03 IBC.


State level here. Mt ammended that section back to the old UBC exception of 16 units. For the 09 codes it states

(12) Delete Subsection 903.2.8 and replace with the following:

"1. An approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided in all Group R buildings meeting any of the following criteria:

"a. 16 or more transient guests or 8 or more transient guestrooms;

"b. 16 or more occupants in other than dwelling units;

"c. 8 or more dwelling units; or

"d. more than 2 stories.

"2. In lieu of the above required automatic sprinkler system in buildings not more than three stories above the lowest level of exit discharge, each transient guestroom may be provided with at least one door leading directly to an exterior exit access that leads directly to approved exits.

"3. "Transient guest" for the purpose of this subsection shall mean an occupant who is primarily transient in nature, staying at one location for 30 days or less."

"4. "The requirements for automatic sprinkler systems for R-4 occupancies are found in ARM 24.301.146."

Still under the 06 for residential


----------



## Paradox (Jan 6, 2012)

Thanks for the welcome and the answer permitguy. We are rural and close in code to mtlogcabin.


----------



## forensics (Jan 11, 2012)

Got em in my house !


----------

