# U.S. Fire Administration  “Residential Sprinkler Water Supplies”



## mark handler (Sep 21, 2010)

Residential sprinkler systems must have a minimum water supply to operate the system.

 “Residential Sprinkler Water Supplies” explains how to calculate the minimum water supply.

U.S. Fire Administration

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/coffee-break/cb_fp_2010_38.pdf


----------



## conarb (Sep 21, 2010)

Mark:That's all well and good for them to say, but in the real world the Santa Clara County fire marshal is requiring a home I have in for permit to have 15,000 gallons for sprinkled, 5,000 domestic and a separate 10,000 gallon source for the sprinkers because of cross-contamination, total additional cost for sprinklers for a 4,000 square foot home is in excess of $200,000 not including the additional lifetime insurance costs. I already have the one 5,000 gallon domestic water stainless steel tank in along with the 48Kw emergency generator for construction purposes (tank is on the left behind the propane tanks, if I lose the battle of qualifying as a "remodel" and get classified as a "new home" I will need two more 5,000 gallon tanks).

View attachment 442

​
View attachment 202


View attachment 202


/monthly_2010_07/2020-generator..jpg.8f317c97426c1ba353bbb74d701bff4c.jpg


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2010)

Well conarb as I see it Mark's link only requires a 10 minute supply where as the Santa Clara county fire marshal needs 2 hours. That sure is a pretty slow response time.

do they still use horse drawn equipment there?


----------



## beach (Sep 21, 2010)

Maybe Santa Clara isn't in the real world...... and everywhere else is.


----------



## conarb (Sep 21, 2010)

We are actually saving money being on a well, the water district wants $136,000 for an 1½" meter.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2010)

The code requires up to a 30 minute supply in rural areas

2006 IFC

B103.3 Areas without water supply systems.

For information regarding water supplies for fire-fighting purposes in rural and suburban areas in which adequate and reliable water supply systems do not exist, the fire code official is authorized to utilize NFPA 1142 or the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.

2006 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.

404.5 Adequate water supply.

Adequate water supply shall be determined for purposes of initial attack and flame front control as follows:

1. One- and two-family dwellings. The required water supply for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire area that does not exceed 3,600 square feet (334 m2) shall be 1,000 gallons per minute (63.1 L/s) for a minimum duration of 30 minutes. The required water supply for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet (334 m2) shall be 1,500 gallons per minute (95 L/s) for a minimum duration of 30 minutes.

Exception: A reduction in required flow rate of 50 percent, as approved by the code official, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.


----------



## conarb (Sep 21, 2010)

Log Cabin:

The code can say 30 minutes but the AHJ can increase that time, and they may have good reason here to go to 2 hours, what am I suppose to do, sue them? It's been my experience over the last half century that fire marshals have unlimited discretion.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 21, 2010)

It just seems very unreasonable. You should have put the money into a large swimming pool


----------



## conarb (Sep 21, 2010)

Log Cabin:

No, they won't allow it.



			
				Santa Clara County said:
			
		

> *7. Why do I  need to install two water tanks for my residential project?*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


¹ http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/fmo/faq#null


----------



## Mule (Sep 21, 2010)

And who is going to insure that the secondary tank is monitored and will always be full? There's probably valves on it that will be able to be shut off.....just saying...


----------



## AegisFPE (Sep 21, 2010)

> 2006 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.404.5 Adequate water supply.


While Section 404 describes a "conforming water supply," Table 503.1 provides for situations where there is no water (Footnote e).  Of course Footnote b appears to uniquely address "subdivisions," though this term appears to be undefined.


----------



## AegisFPE (Sep 21, 2010)

> 2006 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.404.5 Adequate water supply.


While Section 404 describes a "conforming water supply," Table 503.1 provides for situations where there is no water (Footnote e).  Of course Footnote b appears to uniquely address "subdivisions," though this term appears to be undefined.


----------



## Builder Bob (Sep 22, 2010)

The 2 hour requirement mirrors ISO requirements - It sounds like the Santa Clara Fire Marshal is sspreading the love amonst all people in the S/D. It really sounds like a typical developer solution - Make the home owner pay or provide fire protection when building on their lot instead of providing the S/D infrastructure up front prior o housing being constructed.

(JMHO)


----------



## peach (Sep 25, 2010)

The IRC doesn't require that much.  7 or 10 minutes (as I recall, since I loaned my 09 IRC out)..  NFPA 13D is a little different... but since it's written by NFPA, I'm sure there are lots of FPN and exceptions.


----------



## hlfireinspector (Oct 23, 2010)

The 13D system is a life safety system. It is designed to prevent flashover and allow time to exit the structure. I do not know anyone that takes 2 hours to exit the structure. These FM's are trying to do something that a 13D is not designed to do, save the structure.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 24, 2010)

Conarb stated "It's been my experience over the last half century that fire marshals have unlimited discretion."

Is this 2 hour requirement a part of the California Fire Code or a local ordinance or is it something that the Fire Marshal is personally requiring?

If it is a personal requirement of the Fire Marshal what is the legal basis for his making such a requirement?


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2010)

If Conarb is building in the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District

Responsible for an area of some 250 square miles with eight stations thats over 31 Sq miles per station.

Depending on where he is building, and the limited access, and the Fire Protection District is discussing closing two stations

Extending the time requirement  is valid.

The CA Fire Code is based on the IFC but a  city, county or city and county may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, *geological or topographical conditions.*

Their not interested in saving Dick, their out to save the next owner.....


----------



## Mark K (Oct 24, 2010)

If the argument is that because of the fire department response time the sprinkler system must be operational for 2 hours in order to provide life safety level of protection to subject property as well as adjacent properties I can accept it.  This assumes several things, first that the two hours is based on some defendable time estimate and not just made up, similar criteria is applied to other residences,  and the local jurisdiction has formally ammended the local fire code to reflect this requirement.

A quick search on-line failed to find any local amendments to the CFC by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District or the cities of Brentwood and Oakley.


----------



## Rio (Oct 24, 2010)

Mark K said:
			
		

> Conarb stated "It's been my experience over the last half century that fire marshals have unlimited discretion."Is this 2 hour requirement a part of the California Fire Code or a local ordinance or is it something that the Fire Marshal is personally requiring?
> 
> If it is a personal requirement of the Fire Marshal what is the legal basis for his making such a requirement?


In the part of California where I do business (San Diego County) there is a local fire code that has been adopted by all of the fire departments in the county. It was updated in 2009, after the last series of conflagrations that swept through the county and it's very restrictive.  As Conarb points out, the fire marshals have almost unlimited discretion.  We have a current project that almost got torpedoed because of the new code. We had another project for an apartment building that never got off the ground due to the increased width for fire truck access than had been previously required; It's another example of bureaucracy run wild.  Sure, things will be safer and safer, but the real result is more and more people are priced out of the market. The final result will be the safest structure in the world and no one will be able to afford to buy it.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2010)

It's all based on choices, including location, density and construction materials.


----------



## Bootleg (Oct 24, 2010)

It's politics at it's best.


----------



## conarb (Oct 24, 2010)

Mark:The area I'm trying to build in is Santa Clara County, the East County District now in the news is about 100 miles east,  the East County District is rather large, they can't justify building a firehouse way out in the sticks, so they subcontract fire protection to CalFire, they are trying to end that station to save money, it's just a portable building.

View attachment 236

​

			
				Contra Costa Times said:
			
		

> The East Contra Costa  district decided to close the Marsh Creek station in part because of  the low volume of calls -- about 60 over the course of the winter  season, fire district board President Erick Stonebarger said. With a  $366,000 contract, those are expensive calls, especially when other  stations get more than five calls per day.Morgan said the contract  should be reinstated because residents in the area pay about $400,000  annually in fire district taxes, more than the CalFire contract cost.¹



Actually, CalFire is comprised of state firefighters who are paid much less than the local firefighters, but to save money the district is trying to extend the range of the local firefighters, the problem is that the extended range will double or eliminate insurance coverage for the property owners. The owners point is that they pay $400,000, more than what it costs the district, the district's point is that they could pocket that $366,000 it costs them and use their local firefighters who they are paying anyway. Fire districts are being hit with enormous pension and benefit costs, with all the press about it they can't really ask for more money, so they are trying to save money without laying off personnel.  ¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16398774?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com&nclick_check=1View attachment 236

​/monthly_2010_10/572953ba01f60_firestation.JPG.3673bf25aed44aefa378cc0943201059.JPG


----------



## Mark K (Oct 24, 2010)

The same legal constraints that apply to building officials apply to Fire Marshalls.  They may have discretion in interpreting the fire code but they cannot impose new requirements without due process.  Unless somebody can establish the legal authority for imposing the 2 hour sprinkler requirement then it appears that the fire marshall is acting illegally.

The local jurisdiction appears to have the authority to adopt a regulation requiring the 2 hour sprinkler requirement but until they do so I do not see how they have the authority to enforce the requirement.


----------



## conarb (Oct 24, 2010)

Mark:

The fire marshals can be very persuasive at Boards of Supervisors or City Councils getting their prerogatives adopted into ordinances,  the building inspectors are limited to enforcing code, code that has been state law for the last 12 years here. I posted information on their ordinance above.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2010)

Municipal-Type Water Systems:

a. Fire protection water supply shall be in compliance with the following:

1,000 gpm at 20 psi for 2 hour duration

Private Water Mutuals:

a. Fire protection water supply shall be in compliance with the following:

1,000 gpm at 20 psi for 30 minute duration

http://www.sccgov.org/SCC/docs/Fire%20Marshal's%20Office%20(DEP)/attachments/CFMO%20Standards/LD%20Standards/CFMO-W1-Res%20Water%20July%201%202010.pdf


----------



## conarb (Oct 24, 2010)

Mark:From your link, we are on a well and this is what they are enforcing:

View attachment 237

​
The existing home was required to have a 5,000 gallon tank and wharf hydrant for domestic and firefighting purposes and it has that, adding sprinklers triggered the additional 10,000 gallons for fire protection use only. The owner installed a 5,000 gallon stainless steel tank, not wanting his family drinking water from plastic, if we do have to add the additional 10,000 gallons I suppose plastic might be alright since they can't drink from it. But I don't know, the owner had me put this on every page of the plans.​


> To comply with the California Wildlands-Urban Interface Code :Fire-dampers on foundation and eave vents. Wood columns 50% increased size.This home is to be a "healthy home", no engineered wood, decay resistant chemically treated wood, chemically treated fire resistant wood, caulking, sealants, insulation or other products are to be used that contain formaldehyde, other aldehydes, stoddard solvents, styrofoam , polyethylene, isocyanate resins.No plastic piping, plastic wiring, or any other toxic substances are to be used in the construction of this house.".



View attachment 237

​/monthly_2010_10/sc-fire.jpg.11d72237b8972d17dc281b183bd707ac.jpg


----------



## Mark K (Oct 24, 2010)

Fire marshalls can only enforce code.  Until they have convinced the local jurisdiction to ammend the code they cannot enforce a requirement.

It appears that these requirements are documented in CFMO-W1 and CFMO-SP6 and similar documents.  The question is how were these requirements adopted.  The County of Santa Clara Ordinance Code in Division B7 lists a number of amendments to the California Fire Code but I do not see any reference to the CFMO documents nor does it appear that the detail requirements in the documents are reflected in the amendments.  I am still suspicious that these are what are considered underground regulations, which are illegal.


----------



## Mark K (Oct 24, 2010)

Regarding the owner's requirement that no formaldehyde is to be used.  My understanding is that there is some formaldehyde in the glues used to make plywood but that the amounts are considered acceptable by the new federal legislation that regulates formaldehyde in wood products.


----------



## conarb (Oct 24, 2010)

Mark:

Thanks for that information, if I lose my battle to permit as a remodel rather than as a new home or rebuild, I'll certainly use it.  I had been designing the home to fit within their definition of a remodel, I called the county recently and was informed that the Board of Supervisors had passed an ordinance closing that loophole, that she had informed all contractors that were "in the pipeline" to get their applications in before October 1st to become grandfathered but had neglected to notify me.  I went down and got my plans and application in and the CBO agreed to grandfather me although I was 6 days late.  I may not be out of trouble yet so I have my fingers crossed, it's not only the sprinkler mandate but the green code and more geological studies that will be triggered.

As to the plywood, I've eliminated wall sheathing, but there is nothing better than 1-1/8" plywood @ 16" centers for subfloor, there will be plywood on the roof under the tile, I will order all formaldehyde-free plywood, subfloor, roof sheathing, and cabinets, and test everything before it goes in. I will be buying this meter. I will be having an industrial hygienist certify the home toxic-free before occupancy, owners can furnish with formaldehyde-laden products and the home get blamed if it's toxic.


----------



## brudgers (Oct 24, 2010)

mark handler said:
			
		

> thats over 31 Sq miles per station.


That's smaller than a township in the midwest.

Personnel could walk from the center to the corner in two hours.


----------



## mark handler (Oct 24, 2010)

brudgers said:
			
		

> That's smaller than a township in the midwest.Personnel could walk from the center to the corner in two hours.


In the city I live in, fire/medical response is three to five min. to anywhere in the city


----------



## FyrBldgGuy (Oct 25, 2010)

I like this discussion.  Because it opens up the true issues with regard to water supply.

First the building in question is a residential building that is 4000 square feet.  Guessing that ceilings may be at least 8 foot (probably more).  That results in at least 32,000 cubic space of living area (not including other areas not counted in the total square footage).  Needless to say this is not the standard 3 bedroom 2 bath residential occupancy.

The picture tells more of the story.  A generator, two propane tanks, and a water tank in a heavily wooded area.  I am only guessing but this looks rural (well vs. municipal water supply).  No hydrant systems for fire flow.  A county where housing costs much more than, well then most locations in California.

The water flow discussions involve two types of conditions.  First water supply for a sprinkler system that is designed for "life safety" not property protection.  Second, fire flow for property protection is based on the "needed fire flow" to extinguish the fire.  That can be calculated a number of ways.  If for example you estimate one fire engine with two hose lines each flowing 250 gallons a minute it would only take 10 minutes to exhaust a 5000 gallon tank.

So it is my understanding the designer of this home is not a proponent of protecting the owners property in the event of a fire.  Because 10 minutes of water supply in a fire event is very minimal.  Given the 4000 square feet, the heavily wooded area, the propane tanks, and the generator, the fire department is going to have its personnel very busy trying to protect this property.

Another reason the wildland fire insurance rates in California are sky rocketing.

Have the owner of the property sign an agreement allowing the home to burn down.  That should save some money.  Make sure the insurance company gets a copy.


----------



## beach (Oct 25, 2010)

Bingo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Jobsaver (Oct 25, 2010)

If it is true that this fight boils down to the insurability of a property, then let a insurance company address its own Policy Declaration, instead of imposing these riduculous "want lists" on everyone.


----------



## Bootleg (Oct 25, 2010)

Good point Jobsaver.


----------

