Roadblocks

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)