# Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers



## FM William Burns (Oct 30, 2009)

*With the recent IRC voting to keep residential fire sprinklers in the code; how do you feel about the movement to reduce prescriptive regulations?*

(Examples: fire resistive construction of structural assemblies, smoke alarms, emergency rescue and egress openings etc.)

BTW: I'm opposed to it!


----------



## JBI (Oct 30, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

I've been carping about compartmentalization and seperating uses for a while now.

This one's easy for me though... NYS is not likely to allow many trade-offs. We still require a full 45 minute rating between the house and the garage (I know, it ends up being a one hour wall minimum      ).

No good plan of action can be acheived without a back-up plan built in, and there is never one solution, one panacea to cure all ills.

My 'bottom line' is 'safety', not the almighty dollar.


----------



## Jasper (Oct 31, 2009)

Mandates should make things better, not possibly worse

Some prescriptive requirements make sense:  they solve a problem without creating a new one.  For example, using enough rebar, tiedowns, and shear walls that a house can handle the worst earthquake it is likely to face in the next 1,000 years.

But some prescriptive requirements create problems that are just as bad as what they try to solve.

One example:  so-called "egress windows" that are really burglar's entrances, which come with huge pits in the yard.  These pits can make an entire side-yard unusable, and pose a serious tripping hazard.  It would be illegal to make a well like this -- why is it mandatory for side yards next to basements?

Another example:  so-called "fire sprinklers", which are really uncontrollable flood devices.  These fragile faucets are about as likely to ruin a house by flooding as they are to save it from a fire.

Worse, some of these prescriptive requirements create a false sense of security.  For example, home "sprinkler" systems tend to clog -- after thirty years, they are likely to be useless in a fire.  But the homeowner might still think they are protected.

If a proposal is a choice between two similarly bad problems, the choice should be up to the homeowner.


----------



## peach (Oct 31, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

passive techniques are always better than active techniques (sprinklers)...

Build safety into the building.. don't degrade it "because we've sprinklered the building"...   They (sprinklers) don't always work as intended.


----------



## RJJ (Nov 1, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

I would support that idea fully! Problem is we have reduced much of the protection and concepts surrounding it based on sprinklers. We have products that burn faster and create a greater hazard to occupants and fire fighters. Everything is based on sprinklers do it all.

A few days ago a proposal was on the floor to remove egress windows! Wow have we lost our minds!


----------



## mjesse (Nov 2, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

Jasper,

Good first post!

Welcome.

mj


----------



## TJacobs (Nov 2, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

The fire safety provisions in the IRC before sprinklers are a joke.  There is nothing to trade off.

The garage to house wall was never required to be rated, and you saw the fit the NAHB had over making the door self-closing.  Only 1 exit door required in any size 3-story house.  Etc...

I would not be for any trade offs where the lives of the occupants or emergency responders are affected.


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 2, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

Interesting side note: While traveling to the airport I rode with one of the IRC committee members. We had a very productive discussion on looking at things from other perspectives such as:

• The energy movement associated to thermal insulating potentials and fire development.

• Sprinklers and the need to maintain fire resistive protection to structural elements.

• Emergency rescue and egress openings exterior heights and independent exits and other issues.

Needless to say the Lord works in mysterious ways and we both came away wanting to discuss issues further. We are close in proximity so we will have future dialog and it sure was much more than I could have done during a 2 minute testimony or rebuttal, so maybe there is hope on the horizon


----------



## JBI (Nov 2, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

Personally I see sprinklers as 'plan B', be it in Residential or Commercial.

'Plan A' used to be compartmentalization, supplemented by 'plan B' (sprinklers) to protect the contents of the affected compartment (as well as the remainder of the building). Up until 2003, New York State had NO provisions for non-seperated uses; NOR did we allow ANY mixed use in type V construction - fire wall or forget it!

Enter the dawn of a new age... the I-Codes based book collection.

Now we have non-seperated uses, to keep us on a level playing field with the rest of the country.  :?:

Now we have mixed uses in type V construction, to keep us on a level playing field with the rest of the country.  :?:

If we were still building with compartments - properly constructed compartments - the idea of sprinklers causing excessive water damage would be moot. Properly contructed compartmentalized buildings would limit the amount of water damage to other parts of the building, inherently by design.  :!:

But that's just crazy talk...

EVERYONE knows that what I'm suggesting would reduce profit margins substantially. Wouldn't want the greedy to make less on a building, now would we?

Still sitting on my fence...   

Still trying to decide which way to go...  :?

Still think there's got to be a better way...  :roll:


----------



## forensics (Nov 2, 2009)

Re: Mandates should make things better, not possibly worse



			
				Jasper said:
			
		

> But some prescriptive requirements create problems that are just as bad as what they try to solve.
> 
> example:  so-called "fire sprinklers", which are really uncontrollable flood devices.  These fragile faucets are about as likely to ruin a house by flooding as they are to save it from a fire.
> 
> ...


Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting...BUT...

Please arm yourself with the facts

1) Residential sprinklers are NOT uncontrollable flood devices ...fires are uncontrolable destruction especially in todays modern homes with the furnishings (compare an 8gpm sprinkler head for 7-10 minutes with a 200gpm fire hose) (the only discharge is at the seat of the fire so water is only discharged in the room with the fire)

2) The new type multipurpose sprinklers that utilize the household plumbing lines which are constructed of PEX pipe and brass fittings do not have "clogging" problems because the sprinkler orafices are much larger than the flow control and areators that are on the plumbing outlets

3) The really bad problem is that 3,500 people die in their homes in this country every year!

4) Why should the developers build hundreds and thousands of homes and then pack up their money and leave towns and counties with the fire protection problem for all those houses and families?


----------



## cda (Nov 3, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

http://www.artstudioseven.com/fire-ems- ... ragon.html


----------



## Marshal Mark (Nov 5, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

I say let's not change anything else right now and see how it goes for awhile.  On the other hand, I wonder if we could now pass mandatory attic sprinkler protection....hmmmmmm


----------



## RJJ (Nov 5, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

Two post in and your at it again! :lol:


----------



## FM William Burns (Nov 5, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

MM:

Glad to see you here.  The point I was alluding to was some of the bone-head proposals I heard in the hearings last week similar to ............. lets eliminate x, y and z because we have sprinklers :cry:


----------



## forensics (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

Hi MM

Welcome to the forum and let the games begin!

Glad to see you here


----------



## incognito (Nov 6, 2009)

Re: Movement to Remove Prescriptive Regulations for Sprinklers

forensics,

Based on the detailed records and statistics of NFPA, how many deaths or injuries will be prevented in the next 30 years if sprinklers are installed in every new residential dwelling unit for the next 30 years?

Please use factual information from homes built in the last 30 years to support your position.


----------

