# Petition starts locally to repeal sprinkler law



## mark handler (Dec 24, 2010)

Petition starts locally to repeal sprinkler law

By Kyle Magin Staff Writer

http://www.theunion.com/article/20101224/NEWS/101229827/1006&parentprofile=1053

Several local builders and people employed in the housing industry are opposing new California building standards.

The standards call for builders to install sprinkler systems in all new homes, a proposition building officials said can add $6,000 to $12,000 to new buildings.

“It's so cost-prohibitive to new homebuilders,” said Walt Wilson, a Grass Valley-based real estate broker. Given the shaky state of the economy, “this is not the right time for these rules,” he added.

California's State Fire Marshal called for the standards as a way to protect homes and contain flames to buy residents time to exit the structure.

Barbara Bashall, executive director of the Nevada County Contractor's Association, opposes the sprinkler requirement.

“I think it's bad timing to add new regulations at a time when the housing market is so impacted,” Bashall said.

Wilson is one of several western Nevada County housing professionals who signed off on a petition generated by David Long of Grass Valley's Lincoln and Long civil engineering firm.

“These mandatory sprinkler systems will cost Californians millions of dollars, and stifle an already suffering building industry,” Long said in an e-mail to supporters urging them to sign the petition. It currently has close to 400 signatures and will be submitted to the state after Dec. 30.

The regulations cut into a builder's ability to offer a competitively priced project, said Grass Valley Planning Commission vice chair and Tru-Line Builders Project Supervisor Daniel Swartzendruber, who added his name to the petition.

“It's like hitting a dog while it's down,” Swartzendruber said. “A developer is trying to make a certain percentage, and when you're adding that much money to it, you're just killing a project.”

Nevada County's Supervisors panned the sprinkler element when adopting the state's new building standards earlier this month. Visit http://www.gopetition.com/petition/41179.html to view the petition.

To contact Staff Writer Kyle Magin, e-mail kmagin@theunion.com.


----------



## Architect1281 (Dec 24, 2010)

If it is so right !

If they save so many lives !

if they make it so safe for responders !

Then

MAKE THE INSTALLATION RETROACTIVE IN EVERY DWELLING UNIT !!!

WHY should only the wealthy be protected is it protection of the well to do?


----------



## conarb (Dec 24, 2010)

Popular Mechanics said:
			
		

> The sprinkler mandate was one of 2400 code change proposals in the past  IRC revision. The NAHB took a position on 960 proposals, with an eye on  one particular concern: "You have a number of manufacturers trying to  promote a specific product," Orlowski says. According to the NAHB's  communications director, Calli Schmidt, "The only way for sprinkler  manufacturers to make money is to focus on mandates. Otherwise, they're  not financially feasible."  The fire survival rate in homes with working smoke detectors is 99.41  percent, according to the NFPA. Toss in a sprinkler, and the rate rises  to 99.6 percent. "Consider how little it costs to install smoke alarms,"  Orlowski says. "For the cost of the sprinklers, you're really not  getting a significant increase in safety.¹


¹ http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/improvement/security/the-fight-over-fire-sprinklers-in-new-homes


----------



## peach (Dec 25, 2010)

IF the purpose is to get occupants out of the structure, smoke detectors are a better option; if the purpose is to reduce property damage (particularly to adjacent structures), that's when sprinkler systems may be more helpful.

THAT'S why the code has required smoke detectors to be hardwired and interconnected with battery back up for the last decade or so... they are meant to save lives, not property.


----------



## conarb (Dec 25, 2010)

For what good it's going to do I sent the petition off to several contractor and architect friends and signed it myself, rest your cursor over the word "*view*" in the petition to see comments made  (including mine).


----------



## TimNY (Dec 26, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> IF the purpose is to get occupants out of the structure, smoke detectors are a better option; if the purpose is to reduce property damage (particularly to adjacent structures), that's when sprinkler systems may be more helpful.THAT'S why the code has required smoke detectors to be hardwired and interconnected with battery back up for the last decade or so... they are meant to save lives, not property.


The code is driven by insurance companies and large corporations, I think we can all agree.  It stopped being about saving lives and started being about selling product and reducing insurance payouts long ago.

I think an interconnected smoke alarm in every room in the house would yield better results.


----------



## jpranch (Dec 27, 2010)

I just signed it as well.


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

Most homeowners don't get a break by installing them.. because of the water damage.  Save lives.. install smoke detectors... require really long life batteries in case the electricity is cut off.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 28, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> Most homeowners don't get a break by installing them.


 *You might want to read this from a critic of the fire sprinklers, the National Association of Home Builders*

Fire Sprinklers and Homeowner Insurance

Special Studies, September 14, 2007

*National Association of Home Builders*

http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=82243


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

I wanted to install them in the last house I built for myself.. I know there was no insurance break, Mark


----------



## mark handler (Dec 28, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> I wanted to install them in the last house I built for myself.. I know there was no insurance break, Mark


I guess it's where you are


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

maybe.. and maybe it's the insurance industry...

I got sick of them when I was in florida and they wanted "us" to enforce ongoing use of hurricane shutters... no break there, either... quite the bruhaha at the SBCCI hearings.


----------



## mark handler (Dec 28, 2010)

peach said:
			
		

> maybe.. and maybe it's the insurance industry... I got sick of them when I was in florida and they wanted "us" to enforce ongoing use of hurricane shutters... no break there, either... quite the bruhaha at the SBCCI hearings.


Read the National Association of Home Builders paper


----------



## peach (Dec 28, 2010)

was there... every time...  don't necessarily like NAHB either


----------



## Alias (Dec 29, 2010)

I signed.  Here is my comment:

"This is going to cause a long term detriment to the recovery of California's housing industry.  It will add more requirements to  overburdened building and fire departments at a time when all are facing or have made cutbacks.

Rural jurisdictions are going to have a difficult time enforcing the provisions of the law.  A lot of the smaller jurisdictions do not have the additional funds or personnel during the budget crunch.

Repeal this provision now."

Sue, jurisdiction of 1 at 3/4 time......thank you governator...........


----------



## incognito (Dec 29, 2010)

I would take NAHB over NFPA and NFSA any day. The information from NAHB that Mark Handler provided above is way more accurate than the information that the profiteers from NFPA and NFSA spew.


----------



## peach (Jan 5, 2011)

kind of a moot point, really, if many of the states are not adopting the provisions.

If I read the provisions of the RFS in the IRC plumbing section correctly, each head needs to provide 7 minutes of flow.. that's not going to save firefighters lives.. it's going to get the occupant out of the building.. period.


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 5, 2011)

Just for clarification......fire behavior/science.........

[1] 7 min. to reduce the HRR causing the effect of structural degredation.

[2] Building to a point of [900-1100 degress Ordinary Combustible Setting] (depending on referenced source) eliminating the potential for the event called "FLASHOVER" for occupants and or responders.


----------



## beach (Jan 6, 2011)

.................................................................



> Wow, a lot of comments on residential sprinklers. That’s good.
> 
> Having been involved with the discussion regarding residential sprinklers, I think back to my days in the military. They say that the first thing to die in a war is “the truth.” For that reason, those of us that have supported the mandate of residential sprinklers have tried to get out the truth so everyone can decide.
> 
> ...


----------



## FM William Burns (Jan 6, 2011)

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh


----------



## Alias (Jan 26, 2011)

The cost depends on where you live.

I am in an area of CA where the closest C-16 contractor is 150 miles (and 3 hrs. in good weather) away, one way. Couple this with the fact that 75% of the county are on private wells so that tanks, pumps, etc. are needed; it could become cost prohibitive very fast.  

I am tired of having to enforce legislation that is forced on every jurisdiction in the state of CA.  CA is not a cookie cutter state where "one size fits all".

Anyone remember the private sewage system debacle?  An additional $10 - 20K for an engineered septic system based on studies of two locales in the LA area.  Lucky it wasn't enacted or we would have ZERO building here now.

(puts away soapbox)

Sue, where the west still lives....sort of........


----------



## conarb (Jan 26, 2011)

Don't forget Sue, California has passed a regulation that all sprinkler fitters have to be graduates of a union apprenticeship program, if you see any without pocket identification cards better call your nearest License Board deputy, these things better be installed properly or you going to have some destroyed buildings, to say nothing of unhappy people.


----------



## Alias (Jan 26, 2011)

conarb said:
			
		

> Don't forget Sue, California has passed a regulation that all sprinkler fitters have to be graduates of a union apprenticeship program, if you see any without pocket identification cards better call your nearest License Board deputy, these things better be installed properly or you going to have some destroyed buildings, to say nothing of unhappy people.


Oh, don't I know that one! It's gets better everyday......not!

An interesting comment on the petition from a local designer - paraphrased - It sure is interesting that both inspectors signed the petition. The designer and a local contractor both have signed the petition.

Sue, where the west still lives......


----------



## forensics (Jan 26, 2011)

Uh Oh Look who the cat drug in .....Forensics 

http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Ballanco/2011/01/01/The-Engineering-Dilemma

PM Engineer

January 2011

The Engineering Dilemma

Product liability and the "800-pound gorilla"

The current edition of PM Engineer contains a very interesting article about engineering design and liability. The article, titled The Engineering Dilemma written by Julius Ballanco, PE ponders very interesting questions about possible liability to professional engineers who do not include home fire sprinkler systems in one- and two-family homes and townhomes designs, as required by model codes. Click here and turn to page 6 to read the article in its entirety.

This article by Mr. Ballanco prompted me to write this post and offer my own outlook on the issue. Delving into the realm of the proverbial "800-pound gorilla in the room" I also explore the possibility that the first fire death or significant injury that ocurs in a home built without fire sprinklers after January 1, 2011 may result in defective product litigation. The standard of home fire safety has been set. All model codes now require fire sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and townhomes. National model codes represent minimum standards of safety. Doesn't it make sense to deduce that homes built without fire sprinkler systems are then defective; substandard?

I had a conversation with an attorney whose firm has been involved in asbestos litigation. From this attorney I learned about “constructive knowledge” and product liability laws. I was curious and continued my research on the subject and found this definition of product liability from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute: “Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. While products are generally thought of as tangible personal property, products liability has stretched that definition to include intangibles (gas), naturals (pets), real estate (house), and writings (navigational charts)."

Will the “smoking gun” to prove constructive knowledge in the case of new homes built without fire sprinklers after January 1, 2011 be the many postings on builder association’s websites, talking points and documented testimony by homebuilders that new homes are safe, that smoke alarms are enough, and that fire sprinklers are not necessary?

 Also on the record are the safety professional’s testimonies and the well publicized incidents and scientific evidence proving that new homes do burn, that they may pose a greater risk when lightweight construction used to build most modern homes is exposed to fire; along with other architectural features and contents of modern homes that contribute to a more toxic environment, and faster fire growth and extension.

It is truly a sad state of affairs when home buyer protection may be overlooked in the pursuit of profits. Is it possible that we will have to wait for a tragedy and product liability litigation before all new homes in our country are equipped with this life safety system? Fire sprinklers will prevent thousands of needless fire deaths. I hope the policy makers take a long, hard look at the issue before making a decision (if only from a product liability perspective) and do the right thing for the US consumer and for future generations of home buyers.


----------



## incognito (Jan 27, 2011)

And do not forget all the lives that RFS will save. Biggest line of BS out there. There are about 3000 deaths a year as a result of residential fires. I would like to see the fire "experts" predict, statistically, how many lives will be saved next year and over the next decade if sprinklers were installed in every new home starting today. They won't even attempt to because they know that the numbers will not support their position. The RFS issue has nothing to do with saving lives. It is all about the fire sprinkler manufacturers and installers stealing billions of dollars every year from homebuyers.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 27, 2011)

There is a "ramp-up" time that must occur before _*any*_ new code provision can realize it's full potential.  This is common sense.  You can't finish a race you don't start.


----------



## conarb (Jan 27, 2011)

They can't even estimate how many deaths would be prevented if every residence in America had sprinklers, to begin with fire deaths were down to 2.565 in 2009, many from wildfires that sprinklers do no good to prevent, factor in the deaths that do occur when buildings are sprinkled, like the brand new building in Wells New York with 6 deaths when the sprinklers didn't work, or the Casa de Vallejo where the sprinklers did work but 2 died, Sprinklers will probably save a very few lives but nobody can accurately predict how many, the sprinkler salesmen always infer that sprinklers will save all lives when they quote numbers like 3,000. Also factor in the deaths that sprinklers will cause, building collapse etc,. and the enormous property damage caused by soaking structures, the cost of mold remediation is more than most buildings are worth today. Putting water on a fire is 19th century technology and should be stopped, even firemen putting water on fires should be stopped, in fact communities should start getting rid of firemen like San Carlos has just done, they cost more than they're worth.


----------



## permitguy (Jan 27, 2011)

> many from wildfires that sprinklers do no good to prevent


Not that many.  Those homes are generally evacuated when they are destroyed.  The most damaging wildfire in CO history happened last September, without a single life lost.



> the brand new building in Wells New York with 6 deaths when the sprinklers didn't work


4 deaths.  And the sprinklers did work.  The untrained staff delayed evacuation of non-ambulatory patients, then chose to use other than the closest exits.  Had they reacted properly, it would have been 0 deaths.



> Casa de Vallejo where the sprinklers did work but 2 died


Only the corridors were sprinklered, and the fire started in a patient room.



> building collapse


Much more likely and will happen faster _without_ sprinklers than with them.



> soaking structures


Sprinklers use less water than hose lines.



> the cost of mold remediation is more than most buildings are worth today


Irrelevant.  Remediation is rarely needed after a sprinkler activation, and water would be introduced anyway.



> Putting water on a fire is 19th century technology and should be stopped, even firemen putting water on fires should be stopped


If you can get something else to come out of the hydrants, I'm all ears.  Beer?



> in fact communities should start getting rid of firemen like San Carlos has just done, they cost more than they're worth.


That's a decision for each jurisdiction to make based on their analysis of the risk present and their financial situation.  Even haters will express frustration at a delayed response when it effects them personally.  In other words, you can't make all of them happy all of the time.  When San Carlos loses a block of houses where it could have been contained to one, or when the kitchen fire turns into the next wildland fire, they'll probably change their tune again.


----------



## righter101 (Jan 28, 2011)

How bout a poor man's sprinkler approach.  Require all the water lines run in the attic/ceiling joist space, add some extra loops to cover most room area, require them to be plastic.  When the fire melts them, they should flood the affected area....Additional cost, maybe $100 bucks in pex piping.

I might work on codified language for the 2012 cycle.


----------

