# REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



## FM William Burns

*One example of many; why residential fire sprinklers can save lives:*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOcLHCqs ... r_embedded


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

*Another example.......since January 1, 2010 *

*121 civilians have lost their lives due to fire in residential structures:*

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/fireservice/sub ... index.shtm


----------



## jar546

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Many elderly and young, both who are not as likely to move as fast and deliberate as one has to in order to exit a structure in a fire.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

FM,

If every new home built in America in the last 10 years, had RFS's installed; most, if not all of those people would still have died in those fires.

I think you just miss the the fire guys that haven't been posting on our new board; and, figured bringing back the old RFS argument might get them back.    

Uncle Bob


----------



## mark handler

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

With budget cuts, and firehouse brownouts in California, sprinklers will save lives, but they are useless in an earthquake due to water main breaks


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

UB,

I respectfully disagree with the survival rate since many would have had an opportunity to escape since the interior area where the fires allegedly began would not have reached the level to heed their egress........IMHO

I do miss the fire guys input on all matters relative to fire like Permit, FireHoss and others but this vocal minority present can still hang with you big boys  :lol:


----------



## TJacobs

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

I am with you FM...for what it's worth


----------



## kilitact

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Thankfully in Oregon we have managed to avoid another mandate that’s driven, by and large, by the irresponsible behavior of a few. Now if we could get rid of the seatbelt and helmet laws.


----------



## RJJ

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

FM: Now you no me I like numbers! Now how many of these people died in homes less then 5 years old?

10 years old?

These kind of numbers can create a slanted view.

I notice a few had no working smokes either.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Rjj,

The numbers and ages of the homes are empirically irrelevant since the causes of residential fires and the subsequent conditions affecting ones ability to egress are similar regardless of the structure’s age.  The numbers simply verify the fact that these victims could not get out and regardless of the smoke detection or lack thereof, let us remember the discussion on carbon monoxide and fast flamming fires


----------



## incognito

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

FM, I'm guessing the numbers are irrelevant because they do not support the case for residential fire sprinklers. Provide them and let everyone decide on whether they are relevant or not.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				incognito said:
			
		

> FM, I'm guessing the numbers are irrelevant because they do not support the case for residential fire sprinklers. Provide them and let everyone decide on whether they are relevant or not.


The cause of the fire is not the age of the structure.

Residential sprinklers will not make an impact until they are more common.

If you want to see the impact sprinklers make, compare sprinklered communities with nonsprinklered communities.

It is not realistic to assume all fire crews are great at filling out reports so they can generate statistics.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

*Incognito:*

The numbers as alluded to by *Rjj* and my response as “Irrelevant” specifically relates to the age of homes argument being used nationally by opponents of residential sprinklers.  The age of the structure has no scientific or empirical methodology to support a sound argument against the inclusion/mandate and as stated; the causes and factors attributed to historic and recent life loss and numbers empirically established and reported support the theory based on the historic evaluations and numbers posted throughout many media sources including the older media once shared by this forum’s membership.  You know where to look  

I do however agree with ones or state's right to argue the "freedom of choice" by person's wanting to build a new home and that argument is being delivered and dealt with nationally and is in the hands of legislative bodies beyond my control.  My response is merely pointing out why the age of homes is “Irrelevant” in any discussion about the topic.

Edit: Clairification


----------



## incognito

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Only those bent on residential sprinklers at any cost would consider the construction of 30-60 years ago as irrelevant as compared to the construction of today. The improvements in the whole package--electrical, mechanical and structural make todays homes much safer than older homes. Yeah todays homes have engineered wood products but the homes typically experiencing the front page coverage due to fire loss are the old homes constructed with balloon framing and minimal insulation in which the exterior wall cavities provide an open chase from basement to roof line. And lets not forget the electrical improvements such as GFCI's, AFI's and circuit breakers.

There are a lot of people on the fence on this issue but scare tactics and videos of staged fires are not the answer to winning them over.  You need to provide factual answers to the questions asked, regardless if you and your pals at NFPA view them as irrelevant. The reality is that NFPA represents companies that stand to reap billions from the residential sprinkler market and the only information they want out is info that supports installation of RFS's.


----------



## Mac

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Brownouts - earthquakes - "empirical methodology".......

(hold on - I gotta get some coffee & donuts - this will be fun!)


----------



## inspecterbake

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

If we make homes safe all the people of this great nation will stop thinking on there own and this country will suffer greatly in the years to come. I am all for safety but at some point people need to stand up on there own I see the younger generation relying more on those of us who have suceeded in life.

I have never seen such a display of arrogance as the one over spinklers. Please let me explain I am located very very close to the national fire academy and there are people that offered to pay my way all expenses to get my vote, just one problem I can think for myself. No I never voted but that just goes to show you that as inspectors we are loosing the battle to special interest, suppliers, manufactuers,etc.

From 2000 - 2009 the IRC has almost doubled in size how many inspectors had anything to do with that just my opinion. I think that I am not alone on this I have to many fellow code officials who feel the same way.

Okay I vented feel better now till the next code cycle wellll maybe


----------



## kilitact

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

I agree with incognito, how can one make a statement that the age of homes doesn't play a role in regards to fire sprinklers?

keep venting  inspecterbake


----------



## Builder Bob

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Not to change or hi-jack the Topic, but just a few observations along the lines of inspectbake>>>>

When I was younger, we had a true Andy Griffin Sheriff, We could fight in schools - principal would let kids put on boxing gloves and duke it out, thus establishing pecking order, neighbors helped neighbors -

NOW, people call the law, fire, ems to solve the problems of the world. Nobody wants to be the bad guy and heaven forbid if your are politically incorrect and actually speak your mind.  Maybe life was simplier back then, but I know that we played, fought, learned, and helped each other back then.   Maybe when the brownouts, major electrical systems fail, and we lose cell phones - people will learn how to look across the fence and say " Highy Ho, Neighbor"


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

*Those who know me know that I for one advocate safe egress and do not just side with the sprinklers or nothing approach!   BTW, I don't side with any interest either except those advocating fire safety*

*Posters, please keep it civil and do not make it personal!*

It’s not the structures or internal systems in most cases causing the fire situation (THAT'S THE POINT OF “Irrelevant”) in the discussion.  I have investigated over 700 fires personally and 83% of those fires were caused by preventative human error as the "numbers" depict historically.  The "age" or "structural materials" argument has no value on one’s ability to escape *(with exception to 1. structural features blocking egress pathways; 2. reduction in required exits; 3. limited ventilation potentials; 3. flame spread potentials and 4. combustibility)* and those who understand fire behavior should agree.  They do however have great values on the survival of the structure but then please remember residential fire sprinkler systems are intended to save lives not property.  Reduction of the fire affecting those structures also increases the survival rate of the structure and this is only an added benefit of the system.

P.S. Electrical systems and supply get a bad rap in many fire investigations because of a lack of detailing the scientific method of investigation.

*Inspecterbake,*  Kudos and agree!  I was the elephant in the "room of interests" and as I did, I will always profess and stand for assuring one's ability to escape a fire regardless of what the code has historically allowed thus causing the existing code's stance presently.

*BB,*  Ahhh I remembr those days fondly and IMHO it all began with removing corporal punishment in schools and that comes from one who experienced it first hand to rear


----------



## TJacobs

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Old home = burns a long time, lots of real full-size masonry, better lumber, more wood, smells different especially wood lath and plaster, more time to operate inside for rescue and on the roof to ventilate, more chance for no smoke alarms/smoke alarms with dead batteries/no batteries, space heaters...

New home = burns quick, new growth lumber, lots of glue and plastic, lick-and-stick masonry, insulation holds a lot of heat inside, reduced time for rescue, no time for roof ventilation, maybe better smoke alarm coverage...

I'm not getting into demographics but that is a big issue.

When the new homes become the old homes we won't have the old home "benefits" for firefighting.  We may have less fires but they will be total losses much quicker.


----------



## mtlogcabin

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



> Old home = burns a long time,


It is not how long it burns it is "how quickly it will engulf" and I believe the fixtures and furnishings is the biggest contributor to how fast a fire spreads and smoke developes. Can sprinklers help? Yes. Should they be mandated in 1 & 2 family dwellings? I don't support that at this time. I believe there should be a move to have fire retardant materials used in the manufacture of the items that contribute more to smoke and the spread of fire. These items would find there way into new and old homes faster and have a more positive and broader effect then sprinklering new homes. JMHO


----------



## Pcinspector1

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

The non building inspector in me wonders if I want to wake up in the moring next to BIG BROTHER (government) or my wife or maybe Pamala Anderson.

1) Will I be able to go down to the local hardware store or the the big box to get parts for the RFS system?

2) Will I be able to do add-ons or make repairs or is that another expence when I have to hire it done?

3) Will an outside company have to inspect the system like the commercial jobs and certify the project when installed and after?

4) Who will make sure the little wife does'nt hang the newly pressed shirts on the sprinkler heads?

5) Why are we burding only new residential construction with this? What about grandma's place?

6) Will the insurance company lower my rates then a year later raise them again?

7) Will the district fire department expand bodies (add more employees) and need a levy hike for payrole raising my taxes?

Wondering minds need to know, and my mine is wondering right now! :roll:


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

(1) If one is qualified but for the lay person hopefully not and in those cases if necessary; if a part is needed one should contact the installing firm or individual who installed it.

(2) Shouldn’t need additions if installed correctly and again if adding on square footage one should have it professionally done unless one is qualified.

(3) Nope,  hopefully a qualified code official should be able to inspect and witness the final acceptance of the system.

(4) You, just like putting stuff too close to your gas water heater (if applicable).

(5) So in the future we don’t have as many losses like we do presently in grandma’s and other’s houses. (we all pay for the losses.........just ask a friend in the insurance industry)

(6) Some do and some don’t 12% in our region and just like any good consumer, shop around. Part 2  - they may raise them if you practice (1 or 2) above.

(7) NO....... most are laying off now and many more will be doing with less by 2012 and there will be less to fight the fires at grandma’s......... trust me on this one.


----------



## Pcinspector1

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

FM,

Thanks for your responce to the questions I posted, they came from the local coffee shop, with a couple questions from some pretty good contractors.

I'll let you know if they gang up on me again with another round.  :|


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

If you outlawed smoking, you would save far more lives...and avoid a large fraction of residential fire deaths to boot.

Putting out the fire will never be as good as preventing it from starting.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Pc:  Feel free to print them off for future ammo or just have them call me  

Brudgers: 100% totally agree hence my tag line


----------



## incognito

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				Pcinspector1 said:
			
		

> The non building inspector in me wonders if I want to wake up in the moring next to BIG BROTHER (government) or my wife or maybe Pamala Anderson.1) Will I be able to go down to the local hardware store or the the big box to get parts for the RFS system?
> 
> 2) Will I be able to do add-ons or make repairs or is that another expence when I have to hire it done?
> 
> 3) Will an outside company have to inspect the system like the commercial jobs and certify the project when installed and after?
> 
> 4) Who will make sure the little wife does'nt hang the newly pressed shirts on the sprinkler heads?
> 
> 5) Why are we burding only new residential construction with this? What about grandma's place?
> 
> 6) Will the insurance company lower my rates then a year later raise them again?
> 
> 7) Will the district fire department expand bodies (add more employees) and need a levy hike for payrole raising my taxes?
> 
> Wondering minds need to know, and my mine is wondering right now! :roll:


1). Typical homeowner or contractor--no way do not even think about it.

2). Another expense. Only certified installers can do the work.

3). Yes and on a yearly basis after install. Plan on $50.00 to $100.00 per year per dwelling.

4). No one.

5). Low hanging fruit. Can you imagine the outcry if you tried to go into existing houses. Its not about safety, its about the $$$$.

6). The savings in insurance rates won't even cover the yearly inspection fee. Yeah I checked.

7). Who do you think is going to provide the yearly inspections when private companies can't keep up with the extra workload.


----------



## jar546

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

My next home will be built.  I am done remodeling homes, especially my own.

My next home will have a sprinkler system installed by choice.

If I don't do it until 2011 then it will be installed as mandated by State adopted codes.

If the State legislators meddle with the adopted codes to cirumvent the sprinklers, my next home will have them anyway.

Really, what's the big deal?

We have a lot of older homes well over 100 years of age.  There are fires frequently.  I see how fast the fire moves and the devastation left behind.

Children, the elderly and pets are at risk during a fire more than an able bodied person.

I'd rather have a cold, wet dog than a crispy hot dog.


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Brudgers: 100% totally agree hence my tag line


In all seriousness, if your goal is saving lives due to residential fires, advocacy to end smoking is going to be much more effective than advocacy for residential sprinklers will ever be.

Even if it's not as fun.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



> 3). Yes and on a yearly basis after install. Plan on $50.00 to $100.00 per year per dwelling.In all seriousness, if your goal is saving lives due to residential fires, advocacy to end smoking is going to be much more effective than advocacy for residential sprinklers will ever be.
> 
> Even if it's not as fun.


(3) The installing standard and the code that references the standard do not require annual inspections or maintenance by any outside entity other than the owner of the system.  (See IRC R313 and NFPA 13D 4.1.1 and A4.1.1)

The homeowner gets to choose this aspect though.  The typical operating instructions provided to the system owner cover the material listed and as recommended for annual testing and maintenance.  The only way that a mandate for annual testing or maintenance can exist is if the jurisdictional adoption process calls for a more stringent provision to what is covered in the model code and standard.

Historically the fire service has provided pub- ed to great lengths on hazards such as this and cooking and portable heating (the leading causes) yet we continue to experience failure rates causing the desire and success to initiate the new requirement (where applicable).


----------



## TJacobs

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> If you outlawed smoking, you would save far more lives...and avoid a large fraction of residential fire deaths to boot.Putting out the fire will never be as good as preventing it from starting.


If smokers would quit of their own free will they could afford sprinklers in their new home in short order... :lol:  :lol:


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you outlawed smoking, you would save far more lives...and avoid a large fraction of residential fire deaths to boot.Putting out the fire will never be as good as preventing it from starting.
Click to expand...

If smokers would quit of their own free will they could afford sprinklers in their new home in short order... :lol:  :lol:

In all seriousness, the issue isn't fires in new homes.

And probably won't be for many many years given the surplus of single family dwellings.


----------



## AegisFPE

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				FM William Burns said:
			
		

> incognito said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3). Yes and on a yearly basis after install. Plan on $50.00 to $100.00 per year per dwelling.
Click to expand...

(3) The installing standard and the code that references the standard do not require annual inspections or maintenance by any outside entity other than the owner of the system.  (See IRC R313 and NFPA 13D 4.1.1 and A4.1.1)

I'm with Incognito on Item (3); I would expect the water district or health department to require a similar level of scrutiny to that currently practiced with BFP for lawn sprinkler systems, and require annual inspections.

As for Item (1), Washington State has a special sprinkler contractor license, but homeowners are exempt from work they perform in their own home.  So, technically a homeowner could work on their own system (just like they can do their own electrical or plumbing, etc); where they get the parts, now that's another question.

On that note, in the case of Item (4), the hardware store should still carry PVC caps and glue, as well as 1/2-inch threaded brass plugs, so should you desire to "fix" your system, you could disable it for a pretty low cost.



			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> My next home will have a sprinkler system installed by choice.  If I don't do it until 2011 then it will be installed as mandated by State adopted codes.


 :? Then it's not a choice. 





			
				jar546 said:
			
		

> Really, what's the big deal?


I am not looking forward to being required to have grab bars in every bathroom in my home and for stairs to no longer be permitted.   Based on the annual toll on human life, 1 in 3 over the age of 65 who will experience "a fall," something must be done to address the cost of falls.  Where is the public education campaign with a "Learn not to Fall" trailer informing people of the benefits of installing grab bars?

If an individual is more likely to be a victim of a fall than a victim of a fire, and we can keep even one more person from falling, wouldn't that be worth it?

Even if someone living in the home is not aged, an aged person could visit, or an aged person may be living there in the future.  (This is similar to the NEC justification for the new mandate for tamper-resistant receptacles.)

Now that we've got sprinklers and grab bars, the next step, pardon the pun, is to eliminate stairs.  Homes should be only one level or provided with elevator access or exterior grade access.  Homes will be more expensive to build with an elevator?  Well, that all depends on the jurisdiction, the type of elevator, plenty of room for debate on that.  Besides, homes with elevators are more desirable, so it will actually increase the value of the home.  (wait, this sounds eerily familiar!) 

It's my freedom; it's a really big deal.


----------



## beach

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Elevator+fire=not good


----------



## kilitact

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

AegisFPE; Excellent post.


----------



## AegisFPE

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				beach said:
			
		

> Elevator+fire=not good


Please recognize that the reference to reducing the incidence of injurious or fatal falls by eliminating stairs was intended to be tongue-in-cheek (as opposed to foot-in-mouth).I did not intend to suggest that elevators should be used to replace stairs, though this would be a good discussion (this is now code in 2009 IBC Section 3008.4).  To that end, please visit the Elevator thread to discuss occupant evacuation elevators.

The example of prohibiting stairs in new construction in order to address a life-safety issue was intended to be an extreme proposition, to try to point to a condition where most of us (it would not surprise me if there are some "no stair" people out there) would say, "Now the code has gone too far."

As for the grab bars in every bathroom, at the rate regulation is expanding, this does not seem too extreme.  I guess I could try to grout the holes in the tiled walls after I remove the bars.

Back to the topic at hand:

Are there many good reasons to install RFSS?  Yes.

Does this mean they should be mandatory?  No.


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Mortality from falls is many times that of fires.

It's a significant cause of death among those over 60.


----------



## Mule

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Even if I had a fire suppression system installed in my house I wouldn't die from the fire........I'd die from drowning! When I go to sleep I'M ASLEEP! The old mouth is open.....snoring away    !!! All the water would go in my mouth and I'd be a drowning victim!!


----------



## Architect1281

FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Date of Construction 1925

COmment edit added 2-14

Just one more incidence of the darn computer doing what you tell it to do

instead of what you want it to do

this was meant to be a comment reply to

"reasons for sprinklers" .... thread below

my point being that for all the info available

why not indicate date of construction when reporting incident

of death related single family fire.

MY suspicion is that it is missing because it may tend to show

Homes constructed to Modern (post 60's to 70's CABO type) codes

proper western / platform frame with fire stops and hardwire detection

sysytmes would indicate a LOW incidence rate ??

Just a guess


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Changes to their structured reporting have been deferred to January 2011.  Please forward all comment desires to have this * “Age of Structure” * measuring field added to their reporting system via the Contact in upper right tool bar:

http://nfirs.fema.gov/

They won’t make any reporting changes unless jurisdictions and users of the reporting feel its necessary as some of us do.


----------



## incognito

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Architect1281,

The fire statistics reflect exactly what the fire industry want them to reflect. To include the year of construction would clearly reflect how unnecessary RFS's are in new homes. I might be convinced that RFS's are necessary if the following questions could/would be answered;

1). How many new homes were constructed in the last 30 years

2). Of those homes constructed in the last 30 years how many fire related deaths have occurred in those homes.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer because the answer will not support RFS installation. But just for kicks I will start with my community. Average of 70 new home starts each year for last 30 years for a total of 2100 homes. In those homes their have been ZERO deaths related to fire.


----------



## fatboy

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The newest home fire that had a fire related death in my memory was about 10-12 years ago, a home that was probably built in the early 60's. No smoke detection at all.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> The newest home fire that had a fire related death in my memory was about 10-12 years ago, a home that was probably built in the early 60's. No smoke detection at all.


The age of the building should have no bearing on the presence of or operation of smoke detection after 40 years of their availability, other than the power source.


----------



## fatboy

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The OP is interested in fire related deaths vs. age of structure, I was commenting on the age of the structure. I was only adding a comment that there had been no aftermarket installation of SD's.


----------



## brudgers

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> fatboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newest home fire that had a fire related death in my memory was about 10-12 years ago, a home that was probably built in the early 60's. No smoke detection at all.
Click to expand...

The age of the building should have no bearing on the presence of or operation of smoke detection after 40 years of their availability, other than the power source.

Smoke detectors loose efficacy over time.  They need to be replaced periodically.  Age of the structure is definitely relevant.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

Some still fail to get it..........the age of the structure has very little to do with the majority of fires in residential dwellings.  Granted there is roughly a mean score of 19% of fires that occur with heating (portable, fixed/stationary) but the leading causes of fires in the residential dwelling are Careless Cooking and Smoking 1978 to 2007.

The death/loss rates are attributed human behavior and what causes the fire not the structure itself, hence the argument is of little value as to the cause of the fire.

The only means by which it holds validity is the socioeconomic factor where as civilians who reside in old homes (non historic) typically share a lower socioeconomic rating and thus are more prone to suffer from human behavior characteristics contributing to the leading causes (i.e. careless cooking, altering heating systems, smoking, improper storage of combustibles etc.).

I will not go into the historical arguments associated to why homes become aged homes and the needs for residential sprinklers but will close with here is the information available and make your own informed and educated opinion:

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/reports/fius.shtm


----------



## brudgers

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

As I understand the statistics on residential fires, although cooking accounts for a high percentage of dwelling fires it constitutes a much lower percentage of fires causing significant injuries and fatalities.

Conversely, smoking causes a low percentage of total fires but a high percentage of fatal fires.

Over time, I believe that many home sprinkler systems will be turned off in colder climates where bursting pipes are an issue.

One of the underlying assumptions of residential sprinklers is that people will continue to heat inefficiently.


----------



## TJacobs

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

The argument that the anti-sprinkler lobby uses of age of buildings could be said for any code cycle:

"[insert new code section or code change here] will only effect new homes so it won't solve [insert safety issue here] in existing homes, so there is no [insert safety issue here]."  Cite phony statistics to prove there is no [insert safety issue here].

Therefore, because we have millions of existing homes we should never improve the code.  Save a lot of money in hearings, travel, meals, lodging, publishing, etc.  Everything is wonderful... :roll:


----------



## brudgers

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				TJacobs said:
			
		

> The argument that the anti-sprinkler lobby uses of age of buildings could be said for any code cycle:"[insert new code section or code change here] will only effect new homes so it won't solve [insert safety issue here] in existing homes, so there is no [insert safety issue here]."  Cite phony statistics to prove there is no [insert safety issue here].
> 
> Therefore, because we have millions of existing homes we should never improve the code.  Save a lot of money in hearings, travel, meals, lodging, publishing, etc.  Everything is wonderful... :roll:


Many people, myself included, don't see a pattern of massive changes to the requirements every three years as equating with an improved code.

Particularly given the half-assed way in which they are written and implemented without consideration of compliance and enforcement issues v. actual benefits over the long term.

The building codes and particularly the residential codes should be simple, flexible, and the absolute minimum necessary to provide a reasonable level of safety.

Instead, we have the solutions to localized issues mandated as a national standard...minimum header size designed for 30lbs of snow load, anyone?


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



> Over time, I believe that many home sprinkler systems will be turned off in colder climates where bursting pipes are an issue.One of the underlying assumptions of residential sprinklers is that people will continue to heat inefficiently.


There is no difference then that in maintaining your heat above 39F to prevent your plumbing service from pipe bursts in colder climates.

As is people will still smoke, not maintain smoke detection, store combustibles too close to ignition sources and fall asleep while cooking.


----------



## Frank

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

An obstical to including age of the structure on the fire report is that this information is often not available to any degree of certainty the resulting responses would often be guesses that could be off by decades.

That said, I have worked a fire fatality in a new not yet COed residence as well as residences over a century old.


----------



## brudgers

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				FM William Burns said:
			
		

> Over time, I believe that many home sprinkler systems will be turned off in colder climates where bursting pipes are an issue.One of the underlying assumptions of residential sprinklers is that people will continue to heat inefficiently.
Click to expand...

There is no difference then that in maintaining your heat above 39F to prevent your plumbing service from pipe bursts in colder climates.

As is people will still smoke, not maintain smoke detection, store combustibles too close to ignition sources and fall asleep while cooking.

There is a difference in where you have to maintain the heat...eg the attic.

There is also the ability to drip your plumbing but not your sprinkler system.

Finally, you can dwell in a house with the sprinklers turned off much more easily than you can when the plumbing is off...if a sprinkler pipe bursts, you can shut off the valve and go on with your daily activities in a way that you can't when your domestic water is turned off.


----------



## fatboy

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

"Finally, you can dwell in a house with the sprinklers turned off much more easily than you can when the plumbing is off...if a sprinkler pipe bursts, you can shut off the valve and go on with your daily activities in a way that you can't when your domestic water is turned off."

No, you can't. A multi-purpose RFS in compliance with P2904 (which I am thinking will be the more often installed system, JMHO) would not allow the installation of a shutoff valve, as the entire plumbing system would be rendered unusable. And in the case of stand-alone systems, P2904 specifically does not allow a separate shutoff valve for the sprinkler system.


----------



## brudgers

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> "Finally, you can dwell in a house with the sprinklers turned off much more easily than you can when the plumbing is off...if a sprinkler pipe bursts, you can shut off the valve and go on with your daily activities in a way that you can't when your domestic water is turned off."No, you can't. A multi-purpose RFS in compliance with P2904 (which I am thinking will be the more often installed system, JMHO) would not allow the installation of a shutoff valve, as the entire plumbing system would be rendered unusable. And in the case of stand-alone systems, P2904 specifically does not allow a separate shutoff valve for the sprinkler system.


Which part of 2904 prohibits shutoffs?


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

P2904.3.2 Shutoff valves prohibited. With the exception of shutoff valves for the entire water distribution system, valves shall not be installed in any location where the valve would isolate piping serving one or more sprinklers.

However, you can have a stand alone sprikler system and it would have its own shut off valve.


----------



## fatboy

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death

"Which part of 2904 prohibits shutoffs?"

Have you even read this section?

Do you have a code book?

Or, is it as I posted recently, you just like to sit in the back and bitch.... (which you acknowledged you did)

If you want to argue, please make it an informed argument, not just for the sake of arguing.

EDIT: No Coug, you can't isolate the sprinklers from the water distributuion system. P2904.3.2 is a subsection of 2904.3, which speaks to both types of systems. Shut-off valves not allowed.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> There is a difference in where you have to maintain the heat...eg the attic.There is also the ability to drip your plumbing but not your sprinkler system.
> 
> Finally, you can dwell in a house with the sprinklers turned off much more easily than you can when the plumbing is off...if a sprinkler pipe bursts, you can shut off the valve and go on with your daily activities in a way that you can't when your domestic water is turned off.


* Sprinklers not required in Attics for single-family

* In climates where freezing is common "dripping" will freeze your pipes and does not subsitute the >39F necessary to begin the

   liq/solid transformation.

* The supporting arguments provided by others RE: P2904 address that.


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

_P2904.1 General. Where installed, residential fire sprinkler systems, or portions thereof, shall be in accordance with NFPA 13D or Section P2904, which shall be considered equivalent to NFPA 13D. Section P2904 shall apply to stand-alone and multipurpose wet-pipe sprinkler systems that do not include the use of antifreeze. A multipurpose fire sprinkler system shall supply domestic water to both fire sprinklers and plumbing fixtures. __A stand-alone sprinkler system shall be separate and independent from the water distribution system. __A backflow flow preventer shall not be required to separate a stand-alone sprinkler system from the water distribution system. _

So, it I opt to go with a stand alone system as allowed by code, it can be shut off without impacting the domestic system.


----------



## brudgers

Re: FYI Warwick RI 5 Death



			
				fatboy said:
			
		

> "Which part of 2904 prohibits shutoffs?"Have you even read this section?
> 
> Do you have a code book?
> 
> Or, is it as I posted recently, you just like to sit in the back and bitch.... (which you acknowledged you did)
> 
> If you want to argue, please make it an informed argument, not just for the sake of arguing.


A question isn't an argument.

The provision does not appear in the index of the online tool I was using...for better or worse I haven't had to deal with IRC 2009 so no book at this time.

And of course stand alone systems can be shut off...my understanding is that some people actually favor such systems as they allow protection when domestic service is cut off...such as when someone doesn't pay their bill.

I'll add that I would want a shut off for maintenance regardless of configuration and suspect that this will be a common modification the first time a piece of the system has to be replaced or repaired...irrespective of what the code requires.

My opinion is that prohibiting shut offs is bad code, it's the equivalent of requiring smoke detectors to be hard wired back to the main disconnect.

Make maintenance a hassle, and a person is more likely just to install a cap on the sprinkler supply rather than a valve.

Sensible codes realize that most people don't unplug their smoke detectors without a reason, and the approach to sprinklers should be the same.


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> So, it I opt to go with a stand alone system as allowed by code, it can be shut off without impacting the domestic system.


Absolutely.

That's what I love about the IRC.

Shut offs are prohibited because they're unsafe, except that they're allowed if you pay double tap fees.


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Additonally, the 2009 IRC code permits installations per NFPA 13-D *OR* IRC Chapter 29.  If I opt to go with NFPA 13-D, it permits shut off valves.


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

IRC (2009) Section 2904.3.2 states:

_P2904.3.2 Shutoff valves prohibited. With the exception of shutoff valves for the entire water distribution system, valves shall not be installed in any location where the valve would isolate piping serving one or more sprinklers._

However, the definitions of the various components are as follows:

_WATER-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. Piping which conveys water from the service to the plumbing fixtures, appliances, appurtenances, equipment, devices or other systems served, including fittings and control valves. _

_WATER MAIN. A water-supply pipe for public use. _

_WATER-SERVICE PIPE. The outside pipe from the water main or other source of potable water supply to the water-distribution system inside the building, terminating at the service valve. _

_WATER-SUPPLY SYSTEM. The water-service pipe, the water-distributing pipes and the necessary connecting pipes, fittings, control valves and all appurtenances in or adjacent to the building or premises._

Under the IRC, you could have a WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM that consists of a WATER SERVICE PIPE that then splits into a WATER DISTIBUTION SYSTEM that serves the plumbing and a separate sprinkler system.  There could be a valve in the sprinkler system.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				brudgers said:
			
		

> Make maintenance a hassle, and a person is more likely just to install a cap on the sprinkler supply rather than a valve.Sensible codes realize that most people don't unplug their smoke detectors without a reason, and the approach to sprinklers should be the same.


Ok...think I'm getting a handle...we're pretty much on the same page     .... :idea: ...:lol:


----------



## conarb

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Why is it that fire sprinklers are not sold at Home Depot?


----------



## RJJ

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Just give tyco some time and the will have a display.  

CA: If you look at 13d objectively these systems are very simple and other then the point of entry to the building, with the splitting of the domestic and fire service connection they remain simple.

The CPVC piping is not rocket science and the selection of heads for coverage is still basic. Not saying that care during installation, proper strapping, frost protection are not issues to be concerned with, they are! But over the last year I have inspected a number of these installation in one of my new ahj's and have been impressed with the ease and professionalism of the contractors installing them.

Ya all know, I voted against this whole mess in the Twin cities and in Baltimore. Those no votes were base on a different principal then the mechanics of installation. I have also exhausted my self on the actual cost of install and don't disagree with the totals put forth across the country.

If a home owner wanted to install one I would have second thought about that and would advise to seek help. I would have know problem with a good plumber doing the same. Most here are being installed by sprinkler contractors. Only have one plumber this year. His work was excellent, but he said he could not make any money doing that type of work.


----------



## Builder Bob

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

They haven't had time to woo the developer, seller, and distributir of home sprinkler heads. They will start having DIY work clinics on Saturaday Mornings at 10:00 >>> stand by for further.


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				FM William Burns said:
			
		

> brudgers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make maintenance a hassle, and a person is more likely just to install a cap on the sprinkler supply rather than a valve.Sensible codes realize that most people don't unplug their smoke detectors without a reason, and the approach to sprinklers should be the same.
Click to expand...

Ok...think I'm getting a handle...we're pretty much on the same page     .... :idea: ...:lol:

And sprinklers should be opt in, not mandatory.


----------



## FM William Burns

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



> And sprinklers should be opt in, not mandatory.


As I've always maintained and demonstrated in Baltimore........ agreed provided the historic fire safety feature reductions in the IRC's improved development were brought back; not only to provide escapability but safety to those of us entering a fire.


----------



## RJJ

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

FM: How sweet it would be if it were an opt in!


----------



## Gene Boecker

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

FYI: Missouri

http://www.fmamonline.com/attachments/072_MO%20Res%20Sprink%20Agreement.pdf

The state has passed a law that gives the owner the option of having sprinklers installed regardless of what code is adopted.  It sunsets December 31, 2011.

The stated intent is to give communities and builders a chance to adjust to the requirement before being required to comply.

 :?:  :?


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

Let the owner make a decision.  Now there's a novel idea.  A spec home would then be almost fully finished before the buyer has the informed option?  It is unilkely a buyer would want the drywall cut into in order to faciltate sprinklers.

What happens with a spec home that is essentially finished, but not purchased, before the sunset date?


----------



## Gene Boecker

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

I would think that in a spec home, the buyer is the developer so it woudl be up to the developer whether to put them in or not.  He'd have to ask himself if he wanted sprinklers or not.   strange law. . . . .


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

How about we go back to the Code of Hammurabi?

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built falls in and kills its owner, then the builder shall be put to death.(Another variant of this is, If the owner's son dies, then the builder's son shall be put to death.)"

Now as a code change proposal we should add the following:

"If a builder builds a house for someone, and the house burns as a result of design or construction the builder shall be set to fire.  If a builder builds a house for someone, and the smoke detector fails to alert the occupants the builder shall be asphyxiated."

"If an occupant causes a fire in his house and as a result he dies, he shall be buried."


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

The difference FBG is informed consent.  If I hire a builder to erect a structure and it fails from defective design or construction, I did not get what I paid for.  If I make an informed decision to add, or not add a sprinkler system, then the consequences should be mine.  For example, if I opt to not add a sprinkler system, then I should have no recourse against the builder if a fire results in loss of life or property.  Conversely, if I opt to add a sprinkler system and then do not adequately heat the house because I went to Florida for the winter, I should have no recourse against the builder for water damage or resulting mold.  If a requirement is in the legally enforcable code, the home buyer has every right to expect that the construction is correct.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

I wonder if the same type of discussion occured when indoor plumbing first occured....

"Sally, I can't fur the life of me unnerstand why some one would want to place an out house inside where everyone sleeps and eats.  Image how bad that'd stink."

"Johnny can fetch a pail a water his legs ain't broke!"

"How you gona dig a well inside of the house?"

"They connect them pipes by heat'n up some that lead.  Pull that lead shot out that deer and heat it up oe'r the fire and see how it works."

"Ain't no problem with lead in them pipes!  I been using it for my teeth."

"That guy down at the General Store try to sell you anything....  Indoor plumbing  just some kind a new fangled idea to get the money out your pocket and make your kid lazy."


----------



## peach

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

the Code can't mandate individual behavior.. I smoke outside, not inside.

not in my house.. not in my car.

If/when I can afford to build a house, it will have a sprinkler system.  If/when I buy a used home, I won't.

Mandating a fire sprinkler system without requiring on going maintenance is stupid.  The occupants will get lulled into a level of confidence that does not really exist.  Apartment buildings need an annual test of the system.. so should single family dwellings.

WE (the ICC voting membership) agreed to a reduced level of protection by voting for mandatory sprinkler systems without on going maintenance. We missed the boat.

WE are allowing less passive protection (like in townhouse developments), because of requiring an unmaintained "active" system.

And *that's* my problem with pushing this thru.

WE didn't consider the added cost to someone on a well (a standby power source, for example). The cost of the generator and ATS is signficant.

WHAT if someone doesn't pay their water bill?

WE agreed to a bad provision in the IRC.

That's been my point all along.. if we are going to put something into the Code.. let's get a system that works.


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

A little clarification Peach.....There are cities where you cannot smoke in a condo that you own.  The codes are limiting personal behavior


----------



## peach

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

that's a little of a imposition of the government of my personal space, don't you think, Coug?

I choose not to smoke in the house, because I don't like the smell on my clothes... even my doctor didn't know I smoke.  (good lungs and heart, I guess).

Same reason I'd never have a wood burning fire place.


----------



## conarb

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

We are won't to criticize the fire sprinkler industry for  the erroneous information in their brainwashing campaigns, here is a brainwashing campaign from another era.  My apologies to Uncle Bob with his 9" cathode ray tube computer, but I sized this advertisement large enough to read.

After reading the advertisement, tap the picture to see a video of why doctors smoke Camels. 

Good Food and Good Tobacco Go Together Naturally!


----------



## brudgers

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				Coug Dad said:
			
		

> A little clarification Peach.....There are cities where you cannot smoke in a condo that you own.  The codes are limiting personal behavior


I'm not sure I see how Condo Docs are code.


----------



## FyrBldgGuy

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

To Attest the Brainwasing began many years ago:

"In the first Place, as an Ounce of Prevention is worth a Pound of Cure, I would advise 'em to take care how they suffer living Coals in a full Shovel, to be carried out of one Room into another, or up or down Stairs, unless in a Warmingpan shut; for Scraps of Fire may fall into Chinks and make no Appearance until Midnight; when your Stairs being in Flames, you may be forced, (as I once was) to leap out of your Windows, and hazard your Necks to avoid being oven-roasted."

February 4, 1735 issue of The Pennsylvania Gazette, Benjamin Franklin.

"Under Franklin's goading, a group of thirty men came together to form the Union Fire Company on December 7, 1736. Their equipment included "leather buckets, with strong bags and baskets (for packing and transporting goods), which were to be brought to every fire. The blaze battlers met monthly to talk about fire prevention and fire-fighting methods. Homeowner's were mandated to have leather fire-fighting buckets in their houses."

Blame it all on Ben Franklin


----------



## Coug Dad

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS

In just over 100 years society has gone from mandating fire codes which were literally designed to prevent the loss of the city from a conflagration to preventing injury to an individual asleep at home in their own bed, regardless of disability or self imposed impairment.


----------



## conarb

Re: REASONS FOR RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLERS



			
				Brudgers said:
			
		

> Coug Dad wrote:A little clarification Peach.....There are cities where you cannot smoke in a condo that you own. The codes are limiting personal behavior
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see how Condo Docs are code.



We have many cities and counties that are adopting municipal ordinances banning smoking in condos, as well as parks, beaches, commercial businesses, and even in public areas 50' away for the doorways of condos and businesses.  Codes only become effective when adopted into ordinances or in a few cases now (like California) into statutes.  Inspectors really shouldn't say they are enforcing "codes", they should say they are enforcing "ordinances" or "statutes" as the case may be.


----------



## packsaddle

When Benjamin Franklin wrote that firefighters were all volunteers.

Therefore, I support the mandate of having a leather firefighting bucket in my home if (a) firefighters return to volunteerism and (b) my taxes decrease accordingly.

So, do we have an agreement?


----------



## FM William Burns

Pack,

I would volunteer if I was not paid since I love the "Service".  When the time comes for me to go to the private sector, I will volunteer my services for where ever I land.  The leather buckets are another issue.

ConArb,

I'm not that old yet.....RE: Text size?


----------



## conarb

Marshal:

The text size was made large to make it readable in the old software, it became huge in the new software, I did go back and edit it down in the last post, but am not going to go back to all prior posts and reduce it.


----------



## peach

As much as I hate residential fire sprinklers being required, due process was served and it's now in the 2009 Code... I never said I don't like or appreciate fire fighters (volunteer or paid).

If the electrical system is deemed to be safe, and the occupants use a modicum of common sense (ok.. well, there's THAT) - there shouldn't be house fires.

My biggest problems are these - no requirement to maintain the system (like submitting annual reports to the jurisdiction - like commercial buildings are required to do), and the possibility (which recently happened in this area - albeit in a multi family dwelling), where heads activated that probably shouldn't have and now the building is shut down (leaving people without homes) for at least a month - they say it was an electrical fire.


----------



## FM William Burns

ConArb:

No problem just poking a little fun, thought it must have something like that.......no worries!


----------



## FM William Burns

Peach,



> albeit in a multi family dwelling), where heads activated that probably shouldn't have and now the building is shut down


Was it a situation where they activated outside the room of origin or if "electrtical" interior wall, did they activate in areas where the fire spread via horizontal and vertical communication access into individual dwelling units?


----------



## Uncle Bob

*Thanks ConArb,*

*I agree with Peaches comment "My biggest problems are these - no requirement to maintain the system (like submitting annual reports to the jurisdiction - like commercial buildings are required to do)"*

*Unfortunately, because they are not required to be tested and blockage cleared; many people will die and homes destroyed because they will depend on the sprinker systems.  It's bad enough that people don't change the batteries in their smoke alarms now; with the sprinklers; they will go shut off the power source and expect the sprinkler system to protect them.*

*THE MORE YOU ARE "PROTECTED" ; THE MORE BOLD YOU BECOME; AND, THE MORE CHANCES YOU TAKE.*

*I have spoken to several Fire Marshals and Inspectors; and it doesn't look like Oklahoma is going to require residential sprinklers; when it adopts a State-wide code.*

*As with many code requirements; I believe the NAHB will come up with "alternatives/option" to skirt around the requirement where it is adopted.*

*It is good that "where RFSs are installed"; that we have minimum requirements for that installation.*

*How do you make the letters a bit larger on this forum?*

*Uncle Bob*


----------



## peach

I wrote a great response before the BB booted me off (I guess I don't type fast enough).. timed out.. Jeff please address.

My problem with residential fire sprinklers is essentially the same problem I had with hurricane shutters.. once the inspector walks away, there is not on going maintenance or verification that (in the case of shutters/wind borne debris).. that they were in place 5 minutes after the inspector left.

We lull homeowners into a sense of security.. which really means they have an obligation to do their part.. and they don't.. and they won't.


----------



## FM William Burns

UB,

Click the "Go Advanced" to ther bottom right of the reply window and you can change the font size


----------



## Uncle Bob

FM,

I clicked 'go advanced" and didn't see "font"; maybe it's written too small for me to see.   

Uncle Bob


----------



## conarb

Uncle Bobby:

In "Go advanced look" in the upper left and you will see a box with "Fonts" in it to choose your font, you can leave that alone if you wish, then go one box right and you'll see "Sizes" hit the drop-down arrow and choose a font size, I chose a Font of Comic Sans MS and a size of 4 for this.  

Uncle Bobby:

In "Go advanced look" in the upper left and you will see a box with  "Fonts" in it to choose your font, you can leave that alone if you wish,  then go one box right and you'll see "Sizes" hit the drop-down arrow  and choose a font size, I chose a Font of Arial and a size of 3 for  this.  

Uncle Bobby:

In "Go advanced look" in the upper left and you will see a box with  "Fonts" in it to choose your font, you can leave that alone if you wish,  then go one box right and you'll see "Sizes" hit the drop-down arrow  and choose a font size, I chose a Font of Tahoma and a size of 3 for  this. 

Play around with it, this is Fixedsys with a size of 6.


----------



## Uncle Bob

Hello, this is cool,

And I found my smilley faces.     

Thanks Fellas,

Uncle Bob


----------

