There Are 9 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by Maria Figueroa on 28 September 2008:

   To comment on the following quote:
   “And what happens when the roast starts smoking, will the sprinkler go off?”
   The answer to your quetion is no. Sprinklers are activated by a high level of heat indicating a fire; they are not activated by smoke. So, while I hope that the smoking roast does not mean dinner is ruined, no need to worry about the sprinkler system activating over that smoking roast.

   On another note, I just had my floors replaced with wood laminates at a cost of $4.00 sq ft. I think the cost factor in the sprinkler debate should be a moot point, since life safety is worth much more than the cost of a sprinkler system per square foot. Wouldn’t you agree?
2. 

   Comment by Tom Royce on 28 September 2008:

   Thanks for the comment Maria.

   For those who do not know, Maria does have a dog in this fight as her bio states:

   Figueroa will support fire prevention activities nationwide with a special focus on supporting NFPA’s work involving the adoption of residential sprinklers ordinances.

   http://www.nfpa.org/newsReleaseDetails.asp?categoryid=488&itemId=40624&cookie%5Ftest=1
3. 

   Comment by John on 29 September 2008:

   That’s just what we need. More forced expenses for real estate investors, developers and builders. The problem is, it increases the prices of already overpriced new homes and cuts even more first-time homebuyers out of the running. It would be a great option for those willing to pay by why force it on everyone? I know http://www.uslandco.com has a petition against this measure.
4. 

   Comment by Seanster on 2 October 2008:

   Fire alarm system ( these is where fire sprinklers belong) is a very important gadget that a home should have. Aside from it saves your home it also save lives…
5. 

   Comment by Robert Mahoney on 11 October 2008:

   There has NEVER BEEN A LOSS OF LIFE DUE TO FIRE in a fully sprinklered building in which the system is maintained and fully operational. The figure given, of 1.61 per square foot, multiplied by 2,000 sq. ft. and amortized over 30 years at 6% interest is about $19 per month- a small price to pay for such effective insurance against fire death.
   That said, I am strongly against government doing pretty much anything other than building roads, protecting property rights and delivering mail (slight exaggeration of position). While I feel residential sprinklers are a really good idea- even though their mandate would benefit myself greatly, as I own a fire sprinkler contracting firm (Applied Fire Safety, Inc., serving all of Southern California!)– Let the homeowner choose.
6. 

   Comment by Jake on 30 November 2008:

   A faulty system? The only way a head activates is by heat unless it is tampered with.. Every system is tested “hydrostatically” by local fire inspectors before the system is turned over to the home owner.. By having a fire sprinkler sytem, your house insurance goes down.. thats one of the benifits of having a sprinkler system.. It also raises the value of your home.. It is much more cost effective to clean up water as a result of a head activating rather than replacing your whole house! Most of all, the safety of your family! I know that i like the idea of my kids being under the roof of a sprinkled home. For a 1,500 sq ft home at a $1.61 per sq ft, its worth the $2415.00 to me.
7. 

   Comment by Ron Tillerson on 25 June 2009:

   I am a fire official for a mid size city in the southeast. I have a total of 30 years both in the fire sprinkler industry and enforcement. I support in theory the notion of residential fire sprinklers, but not in the practical sense.

   I have a few points of contention with some of the respondants so far.
   1) Inspection and maitneance for residential sprinkler systems per NFPA 13D for 1 & 2 family homes are not required to be inspected beyond the initial installation or maintained thereafter, the language for the “requirements” is “should”, not “shall”.
   2) Sprinkler systems without Fire Department Connections are not requied to be hydrostatically tested unless there is a local ordinance requiring such.
   3) Mr. Mahoney’s last comment is on the mark, let the home owner decide and take the responsibility of annual inspection and maintenance on by education and choice.

   Reliablity of the systems, not the cost, is the issue when considering wheather or not to mandate them, as the cost ammeratized over the cost of the loan as well as the initial cost is negalable to the overall cost of the average home. The system components are not the reliability issue, maintenance and proper servicing IS.

   Fire services with “right of entry”, are already challenged to get commerical properties to maintain fire protection systems correctly, and there is no real way to police and inforce the private homeowner to do so except throught the insurance companies. More than likely we will have had a loss when we find out that a system was not maintained, then what? Munciplablities, developers, contractors, sub contractors, and insurance companies will be hit with litigation over the failure.

   There is no arguing with the statistic that these systems can save lives and reduce property loss, but there is a key note that is being ignored and that is “Properly designed, installed and maintained systems…”. Till this part of the equation can be addressed in an acceptable manner that does not infringe on the rights and privacy of the homeowner, the residential fire sprinkler is a “Gadget” that is very easily circumvented by the homeonwer with nothing more than wall or ceiling paint.
8. 

   Comment by Jash on 13 July 2009:

   There are a few flaws/unanswered questions with your blog post. Every year for the last twenty years exponential growth has taken place with the saving of lives. Smoke detectors alarm people for the most part to get out. On that same note the same experiential growth has been seen in the loss of property damage. It seems we do well with alerting people to evacuate but not enough to save property. The damage from the sprinklers in homes would be 1/4th the normal cost of fire damage. also it is important to note that sprinkler systems do not respond to smoke. The only way to set one off is flame heat that trips a filament. Also sprinklers do not go off in the entire home but only the one that gets tripped. Also most insurance companies give a discounted rate with the edition of these systems. Truly a few thousand dollars invested into a 150,000 dollar home is a smart investment into the home itself at a low cost.
9. 

   Comment by Ron Tillerson on 15 September 2009:

   Response to Jash on 7/13/09.

   Your point is well taken. However, by definition a NFPA 13D, which what the International Residential Code is going to require (or similarly written requirements in the IPC), is primarily a “Life Safety” system, protect the property is very much a secondary function, so if there total property loss, the system has in fact done it job if the occupants survive. This is part of the reason that closet and baths under a certain size, attached porches, attics spaces, crawl spaces and attached garages, etc. are not required to be protected, and are stated in the Standard as being outside it’s scope, and refers you to NFPA 13 for protection requirements for these areas. It should be noted at this point that a full NFPA 13 system, which requires FULL protection of ALL accessible areas (including those previously enumerated, unless specifically excluded by the Code) would be significantly more expensive to install, AND there are specific, by reference to NFPA 25, inspection and maintenance requirements.

   As a Life Safety system, NFPA 13D authors reviewed fire statistic and mandated protection for areas of the residential structure based on occurrences of fires and fatalities from those fires. But just like every other structure built, fire does in fact occur in all areas of a structure, with the same devastating damage and possible total loss. So statistically you cannot argue with the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems in saving lives. But the statistics also include information on where systems fail and why. This is the part that is being ignored through the entire process. There is no requirements for inspection and maintenance, and no enforcement beyond the initial installation. There will be loss of life, loss of property, and litigation. The seemingly important issues are cost to the owner/buyer/builder, cost savings to the fire departments and cities, life safety for fire fighters, and revenue for the fire sprinkler manufacturers and associated industries and fire sprinkler system installing companies.

   IF Life Safety and Property protection are truly the intent, which is very noble, then there are still significant issues to be worked out to make these systems indeed the reliable, functional systems that those pushing for this protection claim that they are seeking.

Post a Response

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Or add a Video Comment

with

« Back to text comment