# No WHY



## cda (Nov 12, 2014)

The fire at Lawrence Kady's home on Stephan Avenue in Haverhill last month did more than destroy his home.

Also destroyed was Kady's faith in sprinkler systems.

His sprinklers – installed at a cost of about $15,000 when Kady built the home with his father-in-law as part of a larger subdivision in the 1990s – failed to go off, allowing the fire to burn through the house until a neighbor called the fire department.

Damage to the house and the family's possessions totaled up to $600,000, said Kady, who was vacationing at the beach with his family when the fire broke out, possibly in the wiring.

“I had a false sense of security,” he said. “You'd think with sprinklers there, no problem.”

The failed sprinklers put Kady at the center of a debate about whether to relax a state regulation requiring them in new residential buildings of three units or more. The change would require them in buildings of at least seven units, which advocates say would shave thousands of dollars from housing costs without significantly compromising safety.

The proposal has divided the firefighting community from the building community and the board that writes the fire code in Massachusetts, which in May received a study concluding that sprinklers in smaller buildings are not cost effective.

“Onerous and costly code requirements too often have a negative ripple effect,” including increasing construction costs or causing owners to take their units off the market, said the study, written by Mike Guigli, a technical director with the state’s Department of Public Safety who did the study for the department's Board of Building Regulations and Standards. “Thus, if the life-safety benefit does not justify the cost, then it is the responsibility of the BBRS to explore alternatives such as reducing or eliminating the requirement (for sprinklers in smaller buildings).”

Guigli estimated that installing a sprinkler system in a new three-unit apartment building costs up to about $27,000, including $15,000 for hardware and up to $12,000 for the separate water supply system that municipalities often require, which he said makes the state's already unaffordable housing market even less affordable. He noted that just 2,782 of the 2.5 million Americans who died in 2010 – a little more than 1 in 1,000 - were killed by fire or smoke, citing figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control. Some of those killed by smoke or fire died outside their homes, including at work or in vehicles.

Guigli also cited estimates from the federal Environmental Protection Agency that 21,000 Americans die annually from exposure to radon in their homes, equal to about 7.5 times the number who died in all fires in 2010. Radon is a naturally occurring carcinogen.

So far this year in Massachusetts, 51 people have died in fires.

Guigli's report sparked a firestorm among firefighters, whose warnings have been fed by fires in an apartment building in Lowell that killed seven people in July and at an apartment building in Lawrence on Oct. 21 that killed 4- and 9-year-old step-brothers. Both buildings were built before 1997, when the BBRS began requiring sprinklers in new buildings of three or more units.

“Granted, that was an older building and there was no requirement for sprinklers,” said David LaFond, the New England regional manager for the National Fire Sprinkler Association, referring to the Lawrence fire. “Those kids went into a back bedroom. Firefighters were beaten back. If a sprinkler head activated, that would have put some water down and possibly given the firefighters enough time to rescue those kids.”

The association is a membership organization that includes local fire departments and the manufacturers of sprinkler systems.

John Marsh, Lawrence's acting fire chief, said there is no way to tell whether step-brothers Jeancarlos Marrero and Kelvin Medina would have survived the fire at their Kingston Street home if the building had sprinklers. But he said he supports expanding, rather than loosening, the state fire code to require sprinklers in the one- and two-family homes that are now exempted. He said sprinklers add relatively little cost to the overall price of a new home, and he said a savings could be realized by the staff cuts at fire departments that might result if homes are made more fireproof.

The National Fire Protection Association, a non-profit organization that helps develop fire codes and standards, responded to Guigli's study with a study of its own showing that people in buildings with sprinklers are 83 percent more likely to survive a fire than people in buildings without them. The association recommends sprinkler systems in all newly built residential buildings, including one- and two-family homes, which several states already require.

Guigli responded that the NFPA study is “clouded with qualifications.” Among them, he said it did not consider fires that did not set off a sprinkler system because they were too small or occurred outside the sprinkled area of a building.

Guigli also suggested many homeowners don't bother maintaining their sprinklers.

LaFond, the regional manager for the Sprinkler Association and a former fire chief in Holyoke and interim chief in Chelsea, said maintaining a residential sprinkler system involves not much more than making sure the heads haven't been painted over and checking that the pump is working.

“Here's what infuriates fire professionals,” LaFond said. “They're saying not enough people die by fire in Massachusetts (to justify requiring sprinklers in smaller residential buildings). We've asked, what's the number? How many people have to die? They're charged with protecting people with the code. They're not doing it.”

Terrel Harris, a spokesman for the Board of Building Regulations and Standards, said that despite the study, there is little support on the board right now for rolling back the sprinkler standard to exempt residential buildings between three and six units.

“It's an idea,” Harris said. “They're trying to find cost-saving measures to keep homes affordable. That's all it is. This is just one of who knows how many ideas they're throwning out.”

In the meantime, Kady, the Haverhill homeowner who lost much of his home when his sprinkler system failed last month, said the city's fire department is requiring him to install sprinklers in his rebuilt home. Local fire departments can require sprinklers on a case-by-case basis even in homes where the state does not otherwise require them.

http://m.eagletribune.com/news/firefighters-douse-report-suggesting-easing-sprinkler-regs/article_44b25408-07f9-5355-9027-09c1508a6819.html?mode=jqm


----------



## fatboy (Nov 12, 2014)

Yeah, I would be curious as to why, and what failed..............


----------



## cda (Nov 12, 2014)

Attic fire??? Garage fire Or water shut off


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 12, 2014)

A residential sprinkler system is never designed to save the property. It is designed to give the the occupants additional time to get out of the building. Fire departments are doing a dis-service when they imply that residential fire sprinklers will also save the building and even protect them in the event of a fire.

P2904.5.2 Required capacity.

The water supply shall have the capacity to provide the required design flow rate for sprinklers for a period of time as follows:

1.	Seven minutes for dwelling units one story in height and less than 2,000 square feet (186 m2) in area.

2.	Ten minutes for dwelling units two or more stories in height or equal to or greater than 2,000 square feet (186 m2) in area.

Where a well system, a water supply tank system or a combination thereof is used, any combination of well capacity and tank storage shall be permitted to meet the capacity requirement.

The response time for most FD is more than 7 minutes from the time the call comes in until they are able to put water on the fire


----------



## fatboy (Nov 13, 2014)

This wouldn't be a P2904 system, the house was built in the 1990's.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 13, 2014)

NFPA 13D requires 10 minutes and allows for a reduction to 7 minutes for a single story less than 2,00. sq ft

Basically the same requirements and a 13D specificalyy staes it is to allow the occupants time to get out not save property

Scope NFPA 1.1


----------



## cda (Nov 13, 2014)

Very good point and I am going to throw a "yea but" out

"""A residential sprinkler system is never designed to save the property. It is designed to give the the occupants additional time to get out of the building. Fire departments are doing a dis-service when they imply that residential fire sprinklers will also save the building and even protect them in the event of a fire."""

Yea but if a room fire have not seen one yet either control or extinguish the fire

I imagine there are fires that have spread


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 13, 2014)

*Guigli's report sparked a firestorm among firefighters*

Cute.

Brent.


----------



## steveray (Nov 13, 2014)

"He said sprinklers add relatively little cost to the overall price of a new home, and he said a savings could be realized by the staff cuts at fire departments that might result if homes are made more fireproof."

So much for brotherhood....Not that I am looking to put people out of work, but if there were a defined offset, the sprinkler thing would be easier to swallow....


----------



## MASSDRIVER (Nov 14, 2014)

steveray said:
			
		

> "He said sprinklers add relatively little cost to the overall price of a new home, and he said a savings could be realized by the staff cuts at fire departments that might result if homes are made more fireproof."So much for brotherhood....Not that I am looking to put people out of work, but if there were a defined offset, the sprinkler thing would be easier to swallow....


First, sprinklers don't make the house "fireproof", or even fire resistant, in any way. They simply curtail an existing fire.

Second, I wonder why he would think there could be staff cuts as the entire point of a fire department is first responder to any number of events. Fire is probably down the list nowadays.

Third, and the attitude I hate the most, is how everyone's favorite code addition "adds very little to the overall price of the home". The problem is there are so many considerations adding so very little that the home costs twice as much as it should.

Brent.


----------



## JBI (Nov 14, 2014)

On the OP, I agree that more information is needed to understand what happened.

I'm still on the fence about residential fire sprinklers...

Generally feel that within a water district they are a reasonable item to require.

Outside of water districts there is typically a need for a tank and pump which also means emergency or back-up power supply for the pump. Now we have additional systems to maintain ad more additional cost to factor in.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 14, 2014)

> Outside of water districts there is typically a need for a tank and pump which also means emergency or back-up power supply for the pump. Now we have additional systems to maintain ad more additional cost to factor in.


There you go mixing standards together.

The IRC allows

Where a well system, a water supply tank system or a combination thereof is used, any combination of well capacity and tank storage shall be permitted to meet the capacity requirement.

NFPA 13D

6.2 gives 5 options

#1 A connection to a reliable waterworks system with or without an automatically operated pump

#2 An elevated tank

#3 A pressure tank designed to AMSME standards for a pressure vessel with a reliable pressure source.

#4 A stored water source with an automatically operated pump

#5 A well with a pump of sufficient capacity and pressure to meet the sprinkler system demand.

Neither code requires back-up power supply for the pump or a fire pump. #3 the pressure source could be an air compressor or an air tank


----------



## JBI (Nov 14, 2014)

Not mixing anything mtlogcabin...

The simple reality is that most systems that are remote from a public water supply are using tank and pump. Never said it was the only option.

With a tank and pump, something has to power the pump and if there is a loss of primary power that pump will need to be operable.


----------



## cda (Nov 14, 2014)

JBI said:
			
		

> Not mixing anything mtlogcabin... The simple reality is that most systems that are remote from a public water supply are using tank and pump. Never said it was the only option.
> 
> With a tank and pump, something has to power the pump and if there is a loss of primary power that pump will need to be operable.


Have not looked at it in along time

But from post above no backup power required


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 14, 2014)

> if there is a loss of primary power that pump will need to be operable.


Back up power is not required

Might be in NY but not in the IRC or NFPA 13D

Apologize for accusing you of mixing standards because of the back up power statement.


----------



## fireguy (Nov 15, 2014)

Assuming the house is located in a water district with adequate water supply, what the cost difference between a 13R and a 13D?  10%, 50%, 100%?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 15, 2014)

David
David Collins, FAIA, NCARB 
President, The Preview Group, Inc.
I did a bit of digging and here is what I found on NFPA's site .... 
 1977 .... 5,600+ deaths from fire 
 1978 .... 6,015 
 1979 .... 5,500 
 1980 .... 5,200 
 1990 .... 4,500

1995 .... 3,640 
 2000 .... 3,420 
 2005 .... 2,650 
 2010 .... 2,640


317,000,000 people live in the United States and according to NFPA .0000083 percent of the population dying in residential fires is unacceptable

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/home-fires


----------



## tmurray (Nov 17, 2014)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> DavidDavid Collins, FAIA, NCARB
> 
> President, The Preview Group, Inc.
> 
> ...


Based on the CDC numbers for deaths that year, 0.01% of all deaths occurred in residential fires in 2010.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Nov 18, 2014)

tmurray said:
			
		

> Based on the CDC numbers for deaths that year, 0.01% of all deaths occurred in residential fires in 2010.


They rounded up


----------



## Pcinspector1 (Dec 3, 2014)

Is it possible that the requirement of smoke detectors have been the reason for the biggest decline in deaths in residential house fires?

It started with an SD on each level of the home.

Then they were added to the bedrooms with a later code.


----------



## RFDACM02 (Apr 7, 2015)

This is like seatbelts and airbags. One doesn't negate the other, and neither is perfect, but together they offer the most reasonable measure of protection. There wil be a time that residential sprinklers will become a rule, not the exception. Again, people allow perfect to be the enemy of good.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 7, 2015)

Welcome to the board

and I agree with your statement "people allow perfect to be the enemy of good".

and those that believe fire sprinklers are the answer to all fire deaths.

Achieving absolute perfection may be impossible and so, as increasing effort results in diminishing returns, further activity becomes increasingly inefficient.

There has to be a line for acceptable losses where to requiring  more will achieve little results. My state had 15 residential fire deaths last year out of 1 million people. Normally the average is about 8. I know 2 deaths where heart attacks fighting grass fires around their homes. 1 was a propane explosion and 1 was using gasoline to start his wood stove. Until the reporting is more specific the number of generalized deaths will not give an indication of how many lives may have been saved with a sprinkler system.


----------



## RFDACM02 (Apr 13, 2015)

The only issue with looking at it locally only, means that no one is learning from the mistakes of others. Our state has similar stats for fire deaths, but this is mostly due  having a small population. If we had to wait for a decent enough sample size to find our own statistics to prove or disprove anything, we'd be in the Stone Age. The fact is building construction nationwide is very similar today, fire doesn't know geographical boundaries and therefore if we intend on preventing injuries and deaths, we must take lessons from those with the greatest experience. I agree sprinklers will not stop every fire death, but the number of deaths will likely be within the margin of error for the statistics. The current facts show that injuries and deaths are nearly zero where the system is properly installed/maintained and the person is not intimate with the fire (didn't start or cause it).

The side benefit of residential sprinklers that we're not allowed to promote, but is very significant is property protection. While not designed for this, they work remarkably well at reducing the loss from fire, again data is pretty clear from those areas that have a history of their use.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Apr 13, 2015)

Three out of five home fire deaths resulted from fires in which no smoke alarms were present or in which smoke alarms were present but did not operate.

http://www.nfpa.org/research/reports-and-statistics/fires-by-property-type/residential/home-structure-fires

That is 60%.

Spend limited resources (money) wisely and where it will do the greater good.

States that have statistically higher death and injury rates among SFR's is probably a good place to start. 1 death per 100,000 people is not going to show a significant reduction where a state that has 10 or 12 deaths per 100,000 people will show a quicker result as to the benefits versus the cost.

The hidden cost of increased water impact fees due to a larger water line or even a separate line as some private water purveyors may require needs to be addressed. As backward as my state is for licensing requirements it is clear a plumber cannot touch a sprinkler system and a sprinkler contractor cannot touch a plumbing system. This can only be worked out at the state legislative process to change the law to allow a 13D potable water system be installed by either or both license categories.

Nobody can argue that a 13D system is not beneficial to saving lives and even reducing property damage. Do the benefits warrant the cost is what should be considered. The hard part is leaving the emotions out of the equation


----------



## steveray (Apr 14, 2015)

I know I have posted this before but......99.62% survival with HW smoke and co....rockets to 99.87 when you add sprinklers....If you really want to save lives, mandate HW interconnected smoke and CO at some reasonably low threshold in all new and existing homes. Don't just save the people in the new homes, the fires are not nearly as frequent there (at least around here).


----------



## jdfruit (Apr 14, 2015)

Steveray

I would like to get a copy of the study or report in you photo. Do you have a web link or pdf?


----------



## steveray (Apr 14, 2015)

http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/NFPA reports/Fire Protection Systems/ossmokealarms.ashx

I think that is it....maybe page 40ish.....been a while since I looked at it..


----------



## RFDACM02 (Jul 21, 2015)

steveray said:
			
		

> I know I have posted this before but......99.62% survival with HW smoke and co....rockets to 99.87 when you add sprinklers....If you really want to save lives, mandate HW interconnected smoke and CO at some reasonably low threshold in all new and existing homes. Don't just save the people in the new homes, the fires are not nearly as frequent there (at least around here).


I believe you'll find that the 99.62% survival rate is where HW smokes and CO detectors _operated_, not where they were installed. The significant difference is that FD's daily see a significant number of detectors disabled due to false alarms or failed to operate due to age. Your link didn't reveal the study, but I'll look for it, as I'm interested to know the actual numbers of fires that stat is based on. Sadly, even HW detection requires some human interaction and are easily disabled, unlike sprinklers that for the most part require no occupant interaction.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 21, 2015)

RFDACM02 said:
			
		

> I believe you'll find that the 99.62% survival rate is where HW smokes and CO detectors _operated_, not where they were installed. The significant difference is that FD's daily see a significant number of detectors disabled due to false alarms or failed to operate due to age. Your link didn't reveal the study, but I'll look for it, as I'm interested to know the actual numbers of fires that stat is based on. Sadly, even HW detection requires some human interaction and are easily disabled, unlike sprinklers that for the most part require no occupant interaction.


Except that water valve that magically gets turned off.


----------

