The immediate impact
it had on Washington state was that It removed the road
block requirement that adoption of a residential sprinkler ordinance by any
jurisdiction be first approved by the building industry controlled State
Building Codes Council, (SBCC).
But since that time
only a few jurisdictions have adopted ordinances requiring new single family
residences in the future be provided with residential fire sprinklers. Why
haven't more jurisdictions adopted these requirements?
Are there still
serious roadblocks to their universal adoption that must first be
overcome?
In the early 1990's,
several fire prevention people from the state of Washington were invited by the National
Association of Homebuilders, (NAHB) to travel to their research and development
center in Marlsboro MD. Our task was to work with their staff in identifying
"Roadblocks to Residential Fire Sprinkler
Installation".
I have listed several
of the "roadblocks" we identified below, along with my beliefs, and my beliefs
alone, why many of them still exist. My opinions were formed by the experiences
I observed during my 40 fire service career of which over 25 of those years were
dedicated to promoting the acceptance of residential fire
sprinklers.
Water
Purveyors.
There are
thousands of water purveyors in the state of Washington alone. Each one can, by law, adopt
their own rules. Many water purveyors assess "connection fees" and/or "standby
fees" that many times far exceed the total cost of the system
being installed. The "catch all" justification for these fees are "system
development". The rational for such exorbitant charges are that these systems
require more water, rather than the exact opposite, much less.
I once spoke at a
Cross Connection Conference attended by water purveyors and asked why they felt
it necessary to charge these fees. My answer from a participant was that the
same rationale applies to the water purveyors that are used by the fire
service---if a truck is painted red and called a fire truck, it is many more
times expensive to purchase than the same type of truck they use that is painted
white. In other words, because they can.
One state, (Kentucky) was forced to
pass legislation setting limits that water purveyors could assess for
residential sprinkler system connection fees. Attempts to introduce similar
legislation in Washington has so far failed. It seems to me
the only way that reason will ever be applied to these connection fees is by
legislation.
Expensive back flow
prevention devices are also required on residential fire systems. These
devices are required to be tested annually by a licensed back flow tester even
though no one has ever shown me evidence that water in a plastic sprinkler
system could ever become toxic to humans.
The "Sprinkler
Industry"
The State of
Washington' allows homeowners to install
electrical wiring and fire sprinkler systems in their own homes. While
electrical components are readily available at any hardware store it is nearly
impossible for a homeowner to purchase sprinkler heads, and approved pipe and
fittings.
The reason I was told
sprinkler components are not available at hardware stores, is that the
"liability" to the seller if the system is installed improperly. This rationale
doesn't hold water, pun intended, as improperly installed electrical systems can
and do cause fires without lawsuits being filed against the seller of the
components.
Could you imagine the
impact on home installations if "How To" seminars, along with residential fire
sprinkler components, were available at big box stores like Lowes and Home
Depot?
From my limited
experience of designing and installing over 20 residential systems, I understand
the beginning, (design) and the end, (flow testing) are critical. If a person
follows the design, the installation itself is no more difficult than installing
a lawn sprinkler system.
When all is said and
done I believe the most cost effective commercial installation of residential
fire sprinkler systems will be done by people in the plumbing trade, not
sprinkler fitters.
The "Fire
Service"
The fire service
must finally address the fact that the fire problem in homes has changed
dramatically. Furniture in our homes back in the 60's was padded with animal or
vegetable fibers. They burned slow, emitted a lot of eye burning smoke and were
difficult to extinguish, but flashover was a rare occurrence. This gave
firefighters a chance to get in and save those unable to get out.
When polyurethane
foam (as dangerous as "compressed gasoline") became the cushioning of choice in
furniture in our homes, the fire scenario totally changed. It is a proven
fact that when a small flaming fire is started in or around foam padded
furniture, flashover conditions can and do occur in around four minutes.
Can a fire department
respond fast enough to be able to apply extinguishing agent on the burning
material prior to flashover?
Fire departments
strive for a "response time" of four to five minutes. The problem with the fire
department "response time", is how it is defined.
Fire department
"response time" begins when the fire department is dispatched. It fails to take
into consideration the 3 to 5 minutes before the fire is discovered, the one
minute dispatch time, and the one minute setup time when the fire department
arrives on the scene. Instead of four to five minutes, the actual time frame
from ignition to fire department intervention is closer to 10 minutes. I believe
the facts prove that it is nearly impossible for the modern day fire department
to apply an extinguishing agent on a residential fire before flashover has
occurred.
So what is flashover?
I define flashover as the point of transition from a `small fire` involving a
small number of objects in the room to a `large fire` involving all objects in
the room. Once flashover occurs, the room becomes untenable.
Simply put, if a
person is not able to get out of the house on fire long before the fire
department arrives, the persons chances of survival are
minimal.
The "Home
Builders"
In 1986 I was member
of the team that traveled to Kansas
City to promote residential sprinklers at the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO). My job was to
demonstrate the newly created fire sprinkler demonstration trailer. I sat in
the trailer with the then president of the NAHB during one of the burn
demonstrations. Following the demonstration he said ,"you know there is no
reason why every new home in America couldn't have one of these
built in---but first you have to get the cost down, and then create a market".
Even though the single family requirement was not adopted in 1986, the door was
opened slightly by getting multi-family residence requirements into the
"Code".
Still over the years I
have had some monumental battles with home builder's associations. Their
arguments against residential fire sprinklers were basically the same as their
earlier arguments against smoke detectors, and yes, even indoor plumbing---they
are too expensive, they will flood your house, and no one really wants them in
their home anyway.
Another argument is
that "they" build safer houses today. I don't disagree with that statement,
except, it isn't burning houses killing people today, it is the contents inside
those houses burning that are killing people today.
One example of their
blind opposition was when the officer of a home builders association was
building a large new home in my old jurisdiction. The area the house was being
built in did not have a fire hydrant readily accessible. By code he would have
to extend a water main and have a fire hydrant installed, or, install
residential fire sprinklers in the home. The fire hydrant option would cost
approximately $9,000, whereas to sprinkler the new home would cost $4,000. He
chose to install the fire hydrant.
In
Conclusion:
Since facts prove that
flashover occurs in homes many times before the fire department leaves the
station, why isn't every jurisdiction adopting these code requirements for new
homes? I would suggest that there are still concerns that have not been
addressed. People understand the need, but a number of their concerns must
be addressed before they will totally buy in. Much like the electric
car.
Every home I have
lived in since 1986 has had residential fire sprinklers, but even I have
concerns with the present residential fire sprinkler
systems.
One concern is with
freeze protection. The systems in my homes have all been well insulated but I
still am concerned when the temperature nears zero. Will a pipe freeze, break
and flood my home?
Another is, if a
single sprinkler head were to extinguish a small fire in my house while we were
away, the water would keep flowing until someone discovered water flowing out
the front door.
And finally, since my
system is really nothing more than an extension of the plumbing system with heat
activated "faucets" in the ceiling, why shouldn't they be combined into one
system? No question this would reduce the cost of installation
significantly.
I believe
several actions must be taken before a proactive approach to residential fire
protection will be accepted nationwide.
1) The sprinkler
industry must address these concerns with their current product.
a) To address the
freeze problem could entail something as simple as a low voltage micro-switch on
the sprinkler head that is held closed by the ceiling plate. The micro-switch
could be wired to a solenoid, similar to a lawn sprinkler solenoid, that would
allow water into the sprinkler piping when the 135 degree ceiling cover plate
dropped off. If the sprinkler head then opened at 165 degrees, water would be
there.
This same
solenoid could be set to shut down the water after seven to ten
minutes.
b) For some
reason "approved" CPVC piping and fittings are not made in 1/2" size. This
requires the installer of a combination fire sprinkler system to use 3/4" piping
and fittings. This adds an unnecessary expense to the
installation.
c) Residential
fire sprinkler components must be allowed to be sold directly to the public, not
just to sprinkler contractors.
2) The fire service must finally come to grasp
with the fact they are no longer able to rush to the fire, save the occupants,
and extinguish the fire. Today's firefighter is no longer just a firefighter,
they are emergency response personnel. Less than 10 percent of their heavy
response load is to "working" structure fires. The fire service must begin to
promote and market built in residential fire protection.
For years fire
sprinkler proponents have been "preaching to the choir" about the value of
residential fire sprinklers. All one has to do is inquire about how many
firefighters have residential fire sprinklers in their homes to come to the
conclusion that the "choir" was listening, but wasn't
hearing.
3) Legislation must be
passed requiring water purveyors set realistic fees for water connection fees
for residential fire sprinkler systems.
4) Homebuilders will
do what the code requires. Simple fact.
I sincerely hope those
who take the time to read my thoughts will take them as constructive and not
critical of anybody or anyone.
By: Larry Glenn, Fire Chief
(Retired)