WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS (WGGB) — It’s been part of the International Code Council’s residential code since 2009, but so far Massachusetts has declined to adopt it: legislation requiring that newly-constructed homes include fire extinguishing sprinklers in the blueprint.
Not surprisingly, more and more fire chiefs and other officials are voicing their displeasure, including several in western Massachusetts. One of them is Longmeadow fire chief Eric Madison.
“It’s like having a firefighter in your home,” the chief says, pointing out that residential fires can double in size each minute, meaning even with a quick fire department response time of, say, four minutes, so much is lost that otherwise might be saved by sprinklers. Moreover, the chief reminds that smoke detectors – which don’t do anything to extinguish a fire – were deemed legally necessary long ago.
Nevertheless, the idea of mandating sprinklers has its share of detractors, builders perhaps foremost among them. Nick Riley of N. Riley Construction in Chicopee isn’t swayed entirely either way, but he asserts, there are inherent problems in forcing the issue.
“It could make a home less affordable for the average home buyer,” Riley says, indicating that the added cost to a typical home is between $10,000 and $15,000. “It could also do more damage than good,” he says, implying that sprinkler misfires do happen, and can cause their share of destruction.
But Chief Madison is firm in his stance, asserting that with the size and opulence of many new homes in recent years, people should consider a little less finery and square footage in favor of the means to preserve them.
“We should start prioritizing our building by protecting the occupants in the building, and then go to the luxury items.”
As for those ‘false alarm’ misfires, Chief Madison goes on to say fire sprinkler technology has come a long way.
“Residential fire sprinklers don’t operate the way they do in Hollywood,” he contends, “A fire sprinkler is only activated when activated by heat”. The chief continues, “If you have a fire in the living room of your home, the sprinklers in the bedroom aren’t going to be going off and creating excessive water damage.” Perhaps most concisely and cogently, he says “Quite frankly, nobody’s ever died from a sprinkler head going off; a lot of people die every year from fires”.
Chief Madison, like many of his peers, reasons that we build and fill our houses with combustible materials and items, yet while we legislate seatbelt and cell phone usage in cars, we do nothing to mandate what he says is an undeniable savior of property and lives. He even specifically notes recent fatal fires in the region, including the Christmas Day blaze that leveled a Stamford, Conn. home and killed five family members.
“I feel pretty safe in saying, yeah, there’s a pretty good chance those people would still be alive if there were residential fire sprinklers in their homes.”
Nick Riley isn’t throwing water on the chief’s arguments, but he is concerned that, while a state can take up International Residential Code requirements, there are still variables that could generate confusion among municipalities.
“Right now we have a Massachusetts building code that’s across-the-board, and I think when you start making gray areas, that leaves room for misinterpretations,” Riley warns.
“Does this law then move toward remodeling, and when you do a kitchen, do you then have to install sprinklers throughout your entire home?,” he asks rhetorically.
There’s also the freedom-of-choice issue. Riley says he’s not only open to discussion, he’d like very much to see further study done before any firm legal stance is established. But until then, he thinks the choice should be private … and individual.
“Maybe that’s something I decide, when I build a home, to install sprinkler systems, but am I forced to? I don’t know if that should be done.”
According to a 2004 NIST Tech Beat story, smoke alarms “consistently provide enough time for people to escape most fires”. It seems that mandatory sprinkler advocates are just not willing to consider smoke alarms as a reasonable solution for fire survivability. Also, research is underway towards making smoke alarms provide even earlier warning of fire.
In spite of NIST research on the cost effectiveness of sprinklers, there is no evidence that the average mandated sprinkler would be cost effective. This is hardly grounds for a mandate.
I still haven’t seen a procedure for protecting a multipurpose sprinkler system from freeze damage (potential whole house leakage) when a widespread long-term winter power outage occurs–and they will occur.
Fire sprinklers are in all of the national model construction codes today because of fire safety products used in new home construction; search “lightweight construction firefighter safety” and you will find over 60,000 sites that dimension the problem. Should a community knowingly allow a homebuilder to build an unsafe home? Rarely is a new Home listing price the selling price so this is about homebuilder profit margin. Thousands of communities across the nation have already responded to the lightweight construction fire safety problem, some imposing fire sprinkler requires for decades. Many of these communities offer economic incentives such as reduced impact fees to help the homebuilder with its profit margin – an approach that should be considered.
3,000 Americans a year die in home fires. Scottsdale, AZ has mandated fire sprinklers in single family homes since 1985- and no one has died in a home with a sprinkler system in Scottsdale since that time; people have bought a lot of homes, and the construction industry has not gone under. The cost in Scottsdale is only about .57/sq.ft. at this point– far less than the 10-15,000 number thrown out by homebuilders.
As FireBuddy points out, new construction techniques, including thin new I-joists, make new homes LESS safe in a fire than older homes, that used solid wood joists. You only have 5 minutes to get out of a home, once the fire starts. A sprinkler will go off, and put out the fire within five minutes- a smoke detector- if it’s working- only alerts you to the fire; it does nothing to extinguish it.
Firefighters know this, and that’s why they universally support automatic sprinklers. Sometimes firefighters won’t even go into a burning house if its new, because they know the risk of floor and roof collapse. Does the new homeowner know these facts, so he can make an informed decision?
I urge Mr. Riley to investigate how home builders are reducing the costs of sprinklers by having plumbers install them on the cold water pipe instead of sprinkler contractors adding a separate run of pipe. In states with labor costs similar to MA, plumbing-based systems cost close to a buck a square foot or less. He also needs to investigate how infrastructure incentives like narrower streets, smaller water mains and fewer hydrants can actually make residential sprinklers cost-neutral.
In response to “skycat”. A majority of pro sprinkler advocates not only consider smoke alarms important but consider them a vital part of a safety plan for the home. Consider that studies done since 2004 have found children will not respond to a smoke alarm and anyone that is impaired in any way (physically, emotionally, drunk, on drugs etc.) may sleep through an alarm. The Sprinkler System gives these people a chance in staying alive.
Then there is the rescuer that has to enter the burning building. He or She has been trained and equipped to fight fires, but even these individuals can be overcome by a situation that has gotten out of hand. This can be a flashover or a backdraft or a floor or roof collapse (the effects of lightweight construction in a fire situation that “FireBuddy” and “construction_guru” talk about). These conditions are caused by an out of control fire.
When one of these “Public Servants” is injured or killed, who pays for it? The public pays for it. Depending state law and on the contract the firefighters have with their community this can cost thousands of dollars a year in annual disability/widow compensation, not to mention the medical bills for the injuries sustained that could go on for years and years, again thousands upon thousands of dollars. Your dollars!
So maybe NIST is correct that in an individual home it may not be cost effective, but in the grand scheme of things it very well maybe cost effective for a community.
You also mention freezing of multipurpose sprinkler systems. These sprinkler systems are a part of your domestic water system supplying your toilets and sinks. I haven’t heard of too many of the regular domestic water systems freezing if the home has basic heating, thus busting that complaint.
In response to Dave B.: Technology and industry has addressed the issue of children responding to smoke alarms by making alarms that play a message recorded by a parent. Adaptors are available that tie in to interconnected alarms to enable the use any sort of alarm, from siren to foghorn. If homes are to be designed with the assumption that the occupants are incapable and without assistance, I think a fire sprinkler mandate will just be the tip of the human protection iceberg.
Ion and/or photo smoke alarms should be in every room and interconnected, either wired or wireless. I believe that would eliminate the vast majority of cases where firefighters would even need to enter one and two family homes for rescue purposes. A quote in the above story suggests the fatalities in the Stamford tragedy might have been prevented if they had sprinklers. I feel safe in saying there’s a pretty good chance that interconnected smoke alarms would enable anyone in a similar scenario to safely escape well before a sprinkler even actuated.
You don’t think frozen pipes are a major concern? According to State Farm: “For the quarter-million families who have their homes ruined and their lives disrupted each winter because of frozen water pipes, frigid nights can very quickly turn to ongoing, inconvenient, extremely expensive ordeals.” Maybe the fire sprinkler industry will offer free insurance to alleviate unfounded fears.
In reaponse to skycat’s remarks:
1. Smoke alarms become unreliable because they have a 3 percent annual compounded failure rate. That is why they do not operate in nearly one half of house fires where they were present.
2. State Farm endorses residential sprinklers, and neither they or the Insurance Servives Office consider frozen sprinkler pipes as a so-called major concern.
In response to guru:
According to the Scottsdale 10 year report, there were 19,649 single family homes that had sprinkler systems, and only one fatality was claimed to be prevented by sprinklers, and that fire was caused by an arsonist. In other words, zero accidental fire deaths were prevented by sprinklers in those homes. That is consistent with my personal estimation that the annual odds of a person dying due to a lack of sprinklers in a well alarm-equipped house is close to 1 in a million, which is nothing compared to the odds of dying in a car wreck. I don’t see how a politician could portray a sprinkler mandate as fulfilling an urgent need while keeping a straight face.
In response to Paddy:
1. Has anybody ever seen a smoke alarm NOT work in a side-by-side burn demonstration? It is easy to find smoke alarms with a 10-year battery and warranty–the intended life of the unit, so I don’t think reliability is a significant concern. Combination ion/photo units respond well to burning and smoldering fires for the earliest warning. Periodic testing ensures operation. For the ultimate in protection, add redundant alarms and buy asteroid insurance.
2. Of course the insurance industry does not consider frozen pipes a major concern–because there is a good chance it will stick the homeowner with the tab. State Farm fought in court to avoid paying for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina and now they want to benefit from fire sprinklers. Mandatory fire sprinklers will just add another load of “gotcha” clauses to our insurance policies.
How odd that skycat failed to mention all of the lives lost in Scottsdale homes that lacked sprinklers. If you read the report, you will see that sprinklers are much more effective at saving lives than smoke alarms.
Actually, modern smoke alarm technology has made the old Scottsdale 10 year report obsolete. Equipped with today’s interconnected hardwired or wireless, ionization photoelectric smoke alarms, I believe a single-family home fatality that otherwise would have been saved by sprinklers would be extremely rare.
If sprinklers are much more effective at saving lives than smoke alarms, why does the government say smoke alarms are adequate (without requiring sprinklers), yet sprinklers always require the installation of smoke alarms?
Skycat, the “government” is slowly coming to realize that sprinklers in homes increase the odds of surviving a fire by close to 98 percent, versus 50 percent when only smoke alrams are present. Also, I am about to publish a report showing that “government” cost estimates for plumbing-based sprinklers are around 30 percent too high because they include the cost of the cold water plumbing – which would be installed whether sprinklers were added or not.
Paddy: Thanks for the heads up on your report. I’m sure it took some serious work. I’ll keep an eye peeled for it.