Software
Houzz Logo Print
water_daddy

Residiential Fire Suppression System Requirement

17 years ago

In several states, a decision expected next year on requiring sprinklers.....So how do you feel about this? Cost effective? (Combined or flow-through design)compromises potable water quality?


http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/business/local/article/B-SPRI28_20090727-214603/282505/

By Carol Hazard

Published: July 28, 2009

Builders in Virginia won't be required to install sprinkler systems in new homes-- at least for now.

Firefighters hope that will change, as the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development considers whether to adopt regulations regarding residential sprinkler systems.

The board voted yesterday, after a public hearing, to move proposals for residential sprinklers through the regulatory process in Virginia.

Firefighters say sprinkler systems save lives. Home builders say the requirement would add thousands of dollars to the cost of homes in an already soft market.

A final decision on the regulation and whether it will be optional or mandatory is expected in the spring, said Hollie Cammarasana, spokeswoman for the Virginia board.

Firefighters argue that the installation of sprinkler systems is already optional. Builders want to keep it that way. "As long as it is an option, we are not opposed," said Barrett Hardiman, spokesman for the Home Builders

Association of Virginia.

The debate was sparked by the International Code Council, a membership association dedicated to building safety and fire prevention, which approved a code this year calling for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new

oneand two-family homes.

Several localities across the country, including Prince George's County, Md., and Scottsdale, Ariz., have adopted mandatory home-sprinkler regulations. No state has adopted the requirement.

The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is opposed to mandating the installation of fire sprinklers in new single-family houses, duplexes and town houses of three stories or less.

"Our greatest concern is with how an increase in the cost of production will damage efforts to develop more affordable housing and how that would affect economic development in Virginia," said Tyler Craddock, a chamber spokesman.

Art Lipscomb, spokesman for the Virginia Professional Firefighters, compared the argument against sprinkler systems to the same claims made in the 1970s by the auto industry regarding air bags.

The argument then was that air bags would make cars too expensive for most people, he said. But the cost and safety of air bags are no longer disputed.

The average cost to repair fire damage in a house with a sprinkler system is $2,900, compared with $40,000 without a system, Lipscomb said.

The initial cost for a home with a sprinkler system would be higher, but the higher price could be recouped in lower insurance premiums, he said.

The cost is a subject of debate. Firefighters claim the national average to install a system is an additional $1.60 per square foot.

Kevin McNulty, president of Lifestyle Builders & Developers Inc. in Midlothian, estimated the cost at $2.66 a square foot, which would add $5,000 to the cost of an 1,800-square-foot home.

"And that assumes the house in on a public water and sewer system," McNulty said.

A house in a rural area with a well-water system would cost even more, because a holding tank and separate system would be necessary, he said.

"We don't need the additional stress on the home-building industry and the consumers, especially in this environment," McNulty said.

The building industry has suffered through one its worst declines in decades.

"We don't believe it's a cost-effective way to deal with a public-safety issue," McNulty said. The focus should be on properly functioning smoke detectors, he said.

Charlottesville Fire Chief Charles Werner, spokesman for the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association, said the argument shouldn't be all or nothing.

"Home builders and firefighters need to come together to see if we can come up with a middle ground," he said.

It's important to sort out the truths and the myths, Werner said. "The most important thing is to start a dialogue. The issue is complex and emotional."

Yesterday's board decision calls for creating work groups that represent different interests to come up with a consensus position and a recommendation

to the board.

________________________________

Contact Carol Hazard at (804) 775-8023 or

chazard@timesdispatch.com .

Comments (13)

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    My thought is that they should stay optional except possibly in multi-unit housing.

    Look, a lot of the arguments for making them mandatory don't hold up. The average cost issue of $2900 vs $40k is faulty because, of course, we aren't just installing them in houses that catch fire. What's more, I would guess that new homes in general aren't the fire hazard in the first place that older homes that haven't been brought up to code are.

    Instead of an overall average, let's look at the cost/benefit of these on relatively new construction. The issue is the cost to put this in every new house, verses the savings in the damage to the new houses that catch fire and burn. That's the issue. My guess is that the number of new houses that have a significant fire is relatively small.
    Even if the numbers in the article are correct, the break even point is 7.42 houses - there's no way that can be cost effective. What's more, that doesn't include the cost of financing the $5000 additional cost.

    Even if these cut my homeowners insurance in half (not likely) the savings wouldn't pay for base cost for over 16 years.

    The reason that the automotive comparison doesn't stick is because there is a far greater incidence of people being injured and killed in cars.

    Look, we can make houses fireproof if we don't care about the cost. Most of us don't make those kinds of economic decisions though. I use a helmet, but I still ride my bike. I have a moderate sized car because I can't afford a tank.
    I live in a neighborhood that has a high crime rate because I don't want to spend my entire paycheck on housing. You get the idea.

    Hardwired smoke detectors - cheap and effective. Sprinklers, sure, if you want them, but not required.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    Another industry group looking to cram their product down everyone's throat.

    If the payoff was as high as claimed the insurance industry would be demanding the equipment (and they do for certain structures).

    As hard as it may seem, there is a value assigned to lives saved by things like this that must be weighed against the cost incurred.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    I agree. Trade groups are responsible for some questionable code requirements.

    And note: We haven't even talked about "lives saved".
    Keep in mind these are activated by heat, not smoke. I'd need to see a lot more evidence that they save lives in real world scenarios. In single family residential fires, people are often overcome by smoke fairly early - before a full-fledged fire has broken out, if it ever does.

    Knowing what I know about them, I personally wouldn't pay $5,000 for residential sprinklers given the choice. Even if I was more wealthy I wouldn't do it.

    On the other hand, I do have smoke alarms tied to my monitored alarm system. The incremental cost was ~$100 for 2 smoke detectors. The monitoring is $12 a month total for burglary and fire and half of that cost is recovered in insurance discount. Smoke detectors are proven to save lives and it's worth $100 to know that they will work, I don't have to replace batteries and that the alarm gets called in.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    I think it is long overdue although the timing is off. I can see it being hard to do now with the current housing market a few years ago no one would have noticed the cost at least where I am. I think a comprimise would be requiring it in the kitchen and possibly the bedrooms optional in the rest of the house.

    I am planing a concrete house with a sprinkler system for overkill. The spinkler system will also be in the garage and detached shop.

    I still don't know why they don't require fire resistant building in California in the wildfire areas. They require a pool large enough for a bambi bucket but still allow wood construction.

    Call me strange I still hate airbags in cars. Give me a 6 point harness and good bucket seats. Having something blow up in my face is not my idea of a safety device.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    Airbags were mandated for cars because the powers that be decided that people would be too irresponsible to comply with seat belt usage laws. So $500 per car for something that has a better chance of being stolen than saving your life. Why not crash helmets?

    If you are a drunk and smoke in bed sprinklers might help. If you are in a kitchen with a flaming deep fryer, perhaps sprinklers aren't such a great idea. If you are vandalizing a house sprinklers take all the work out of it. That should keep the insurance costs down.

    If there was such a huge need you would think some smart company would market a big fire extinguisher thingy to sit in the corner and go off when needed. Lot cheaper than a sprinkler system but we all know how irresponsible people are if no one is around to regulate their lives.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    The 2009 International Residential Code will not mandate residential sprinklers in new homes nest year.

    The Code will only require new townhouses to have sprinkler systems installed in 2010.

    One and two-family dwellings will not be required to install sprinkler systems until 2011.

    That said, residential sprinkler systems will only add a few hundred dollars to the cost in most instances. Thank innovations in plumbing pipe systems such as PEX for the low cost of adding a sprinkler system to a new home.

    Where adding a sprinkler system can get costly if one is not on a public water system, but rather on a private well.

    Wells for new homes will need higher flow rates to provide enough water to sprinklers in a fire.

    Well pumps will need to have backup generators and automatic transfer switches installed which can activate the water pumps to sprinkler heads if the power fails.

    Regardless of the initial cost, adding sprinklers will save money in the long run.

    -Insurance premiums will cost less for everyone when sprinkler systems are mandated.

    -There will be less fatalities, injuries, and property damage in homes with sprinklers.

    All this adds up to dollars and lives saved.

    Sprinklers are a great addition to the Codes and long overdue.

    Everyone benefits from residential sprinklers from owners, to taxpayers, to first responders, to medical and property insurers, to hospitals, to the courts, to every citizen at large...

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    "If the payoff was as high as claimed the insurance industry would be demanding the equipment (and they do for certain structures)."

    The insurance industry has demanded sprinklers, and got them written into the Codes.

    The insurance industry was and continues to be one of the foremost backers of residential sprinkler systems....

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    manhattan42

    Sorry, but this is over-generalized nonsense.

    We have a couple of estimates on the cost: Both are considerably more than a few hundred dollars for the base cost and typically 3x that when financed.

    How many lives would be saved?

    Who's money would be saved in the long run? Please, give us numbers because the numbers that we have certainly don't indicate anything like it saving money - ever.

    Does this give us the most "bang for our buck"? If we are going to mandate fire safety, does this give us the most payback for our investment? For example, mandating hardwired smoke detectors in existing homes would save more lives than this would at considerably less cost.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    "The insurance industry has demanded sprinklers, and got them written into the Codes. "

    Or is the sprinkler industry pushing the ball?

    It is an unneeded expense in many areas.

    The last few fires in the area I live in were the result of lightning strikes and started in attics. Are we going to need to sprinkler those also?

    We should do everything possible to increase the cost of housing and limit availability.

    Better remains the enemy of good enough.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    If sprinkler systems were mandated I'd suspect that water damage claims would far exceed fire damage claims. JM.02

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    "If sprinkler systems were mandated I'd suspect that water damage claims would far exceed fire damage claims. JM.02"

    What is the water damage in a fire contained to one room compared to the unchecked fire damage experienced in an entire house?

    Case closed.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    "unchecked fire damage"?

    You live were the response time is measured in hours?

    The response time for my first call station is about 3 minutes, and the second is only 5 minutes.

    I have lived were response time are 15 minutes and more, and the argument might be better there.

    Residential sprinkler systems do not have a good pay back for the cost, and it gets even worse when the costs over a large number of houses are factored in.

  • 17 years ago
    last modified: 11 years ago

    "What is the water damage in a fire contained to one room compared to the unchecked fire damage experienced in an entire house?

    Case closed."

    A little smug today? Pipes can burst and leak and I wasn't referring to water used in a fire.

    So manhattan are you in the sprinkler business?