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.

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.

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

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?