• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Petition starts locally to repeal sprinkler law

mark handler

mark handler

SAWHORSE
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
11,678
Location
So. CA
Petition starts locally to repeal sprinkler law

By Kyle Magin Staff Writer

http://www.theunion.com/article/20101224/NEWS/101229827/1006&parentprofile=1053

Several local builders and people employed in the housing industry are opposing new California building standards.

The standards call for builders to install sprinkler systems in all new homes, a proposition building officials said can add $6,000 to $12,000 to new buildings.

“It's so cost-prohibitive to new homebuilders,” said Walt Wilson, a Grass Valley-based real estate broker. Given the shaky state of the economy, “this is not the right time for these rules,” he added.

California's State Fire Marshal called for the standards as a way to protect homes and contain flames to buy residents time to exit the structure.

Barbara Bashall, executive director of the Nevada County Contractor's Association, opposes the sprinkler requirement.

“I think it's bad timing to add new regulations at a time when the housing market is so impacted,” Bashall said.

Wilson is one of several western Nevada County housing professionals who signed off on a petition generated by David Long of Grass Valley's Lincoln and Long civil engineering firm.

“These mandatory sprinkler systems will cost Californians millions of dollars, and stifle an already suffering building industry,” Long said in an e-mail to supporters urging them to sign the petition. It currently has close to 400 signatures and will be submitted to the state after Dec. 30.

The regulations cut into a builder's ability to offer a competitively priced project, said Grass Valley Planning Commission vice chair and Tru-Line Builders Project Supervisor Daniel Swartzendruber, who added his name to the petition.

“It's like hitting a dog while it's down,” Swartzendruber said. “A developer is trying to make a certain percentage, and when you're adding that much money to it, you're just killing a project.”

Nevada County's Supervisors panned the sprinkler element when adopting the state's new building standards earlier this month. Visit http://www.gopetition.com/petition/41179.html to view the petition.

To contact Staff Writer Kyle Magin, e-mail kmagin@theunion.com.
 
If it is so right !

If they save so many lives !

if they make it so safe for responders !

Then

MAKE THE INSTALLATION RETROACTIVE IN EVERY DWELLING UNIT !!!

WHY should only the wealthy be protected is it protection of the well to do?
 
Popular Mechanics said:
The sprinkler mandate was one of 2400 code change proposals in the past IRC revision. The NAHB took a position on 960 proposals, with an eye on one particular concern: "You have a number of manufacturers trying to promote a specific product," Orlowski says. According to the NAHB's communications director, Calli Schmidt, "The only way for sprinkler manufacturers to make money is to focus on mandates. Otherwise, they're not financially feasible." The fire survival rate in homes with working smoke detectors is 99.41 percent, according to the NFPA. Toss in a sprinkler, and the rate rises to 99.6 percent. "Consider how little it costs to install smoke alarms," Orlowski says. "For the cost of the sprinklers, you're really not getting a significant increase in safety.¹
Click to expand...
¹ http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/improvement/security/the-fight-over-fire-sprinklers-in-new-homes
 
IF the purpose is to get occupants out of the structure, smoke detectors are a better option; if the purpose is to reduce property damage (particularly to adjacent structures), that's when sprinkler systems may be more helpful.

THAT'S why the code has required smoke detectors to be hardwired and interconnected with battery back up for the last decade or so... they are meant to save lives, not property.
 
peach said:
IF the purpose is to get occupants out of the structure, smoke detectors are a better option; if the purpose is to reduce property damage (particularly to adjacent structures), that's when sprinkler systems may be more helpful.THAT'S why the code has required smoke detectors to be hardwired and interconnected with battery back up for the last decade or so... they are meant to save lives, not property.
Click to expand...
The code is driven by insurance companies and large corporations, I think we can all agree. It stopped being about saving lives and started being about selling product and reducing insurance payouts long ago.

I think an interconnected smoke alarm in every room in the house would yield better results.
 
Most homeowners don't get a break by installing them.. because of the water damage. Save lives.. install smoke detectors... require really long life batteries in case the electricity is cut off.
 
I wanted to install them in the last house I built for myself.. I know there was no insurance break, Mark
 
maybe.. and maybe it's the insurance industry...

I got sick of them when I was in florida and they wanted "us" to enforce ongoing use of hurricane shutters... no break there, either... quite the bruhaha at the SBCCI hearings.
 
peach said:
maybe.. and maybe it's the insurance industry... I got sick of them when I was in florida and they wanted "us" to enforce ongoing use of hurricane shutters... no break there, either... quite the bruhaha at the SBCCI hearings.
Click to expand...
Read the National Association of Home Builders paper
 
I signed. Here is my comment:

"This is going to cause a long term detriment to the recovery of California's housing industry. It will add more requirements to overburdened building and fire departments at a time when all are facing or have made cutbacks.

Rural jurisdictions are going to have a difficult time enforcing the provisions of the law. A lot of the smaller jurisdictions do not have the additional funds or personnel during the budget crunch.

Repeal this provision now."

Sue, jurisdiction of 1 at 3/4 time......thank you governator...........
 
I would take NAHB over NFPA and NFSA any day. The information from NAHB that Mark Handler provided above is way more accurate than the information that the profiteers from NFPA and NFSA spew.
 
kind of a moot point, really, if many of the states are not adopting the provisions.

If I read the provisions of the RFS in the IRC plumbing section correctly, each head needs to provide 7 minutes of flow.. that's not going to save firefighters lives.. it's going to get the occupant out of the building.. period.
 
Just for clarification......fire behavior/science.........

[1] 7 min. to reduce the HRR causing the effect of structural degredation.

[2] Building to a point of [900-1100 degress Ordinary Combustible Setting] (depending on referenced source) eliminating the potential for the event called "FLASHOVER" for occupants and or responders.
 
.................................................................

Wow, a lot of comments on residential sprinklers. That’s good.

Having been involved with the discussion regarding residential sprinklers, I think back to my days in the military. They say that the first thing to die in a war is “the truth.” For that reason, those of us that have supported the mandate of residential sprinklers have tried to get out the truth so everyone can decide.

Let me answer some questions on cost. You will hear all ranges of cost from $0.30 per square foot to $10.50 per square foot. The truth is that most numbers that are quoted have been paid by someone. That doesn’t mean that they are the norm, or the average, or anything. What is the average cost of an automobile? You get the idea.

The lowest cost system that I designed and helped to install cost -$8,000 for a 6,000 square foot home. That translates to -$1.33 per square foot. This was my brother’s home, which could easily be featured in this fine magazine.

How did the cost result in negative numbers? He was planning to install his water piping in copper tube. My other brother the plumbing contractor had already purchased the copper. When I convinced my older brother to sprinkler his home, I told him we were switching to CPVC from copper. The cost of the returned copper tube paid for the cost of the CPVC pipe, including the extra pipe for the multipurpose piping system. It also paid for the sprinklers, and he still pocketed $8,000. Okay, the labor was free, since his brothers installed the sprinkler and plumbing system.

I have designed many residential systems. The lowest installed cost was around $0.55 per square foot. However, that is not what the builder paid. The builder paid close to $2 per square foot based on what the contractor charged. We call the difference profit and overhead.

When sprinklers are mandated, there are more contractors in the market installing the sprinkler systems. All of a sudden, the price drops. Many times, it drops significantly.

I live in an area where sprinklers are mandated in many wealthy suburbs. The average price of a system for these homes is around $8 per square foot. The reason it is so high is that they don’t install multipurpose piping systems and they add a lot of extras to the sprinkler system. Extra alarms are installed, steel pipe is often used, this requires backflow preventers, etc. Realize that these homes sell in the million dollar range. So, the price is not completely out of line. It is like adding the extras to an automobile. You will pay the price for the extras, however, they are not necessary nor required.

We recently had a demonstration of contractors installing residential sprinkler systems in approximately 1,100 square foot affordable homes. For one home, a two man crew from a top residential sprinkler contractor roughed in the entire residential sprinkler system in 40 minutes. That translates to less than 2 hours of labor. The only thing required after the rough in was to go back and screw in the sprinklers when the home was painted and ready for final installation. Pretty simple, and very inexpensive. This home had 9 sprinklers. So figure the cost of the pipe and sprinklers then add 2 hours of labor and you just determine the cost to install the sprinkler system. It worked out to $0.49 per square foot.

This may seem out of the ordinary, however, this crew does nothing but residential sprinkler installations. They had it down to a science and could beat their competitors in price. Others will figure out how to do it this quickly and easily.

As for all the comments on freezing, we currently install water piping in all homes. Plumbing contractors have to be concerned about frozen pipes. The same is true for residential sprinkler systems. It is matter of proper installation. They install residential sprinkler systems in homes in Barrow, Alaska. If they can address the concern for frozen pipes in Barrow, they can do the same for any other location in the United States.

For those concerned that the government is shoving residential sprinklers down our throats, that is not the case. The ICC is not a part of the government. All of us involved in codes and standards development participate in the ICC process. The ICC publishes the codes which are offered to the public to adopt. States and local jurisdictions than adopt these codes.

The mandate of residential sprinklers is an effort to end one of the major tragedies on the United States, the loss of life in residential fires. If 3,000 people a year died in airplane crashes, we would demand that something be done by the government. When approximately 200 people a year were dying from Ford Pinto’s exploding, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. When 3,000 people die in a terrorist attack, we demanded that the government do something, and they did. So, why are we not demanding that the government do something about 3,000 innocent lives being lost to fire in residential buildings each year?

Some have claimed that people only die in older homes. That is not true. People die in homes of any age, including new homes. In 2007, seven college students died in a North Carolina beach front home fire. That home was new. The lawn sprinkler system, to protect the bushes, cost more than a residential sprinkler system would have for the home. But a residential sprinkler system was not offered to the owners.

In the 1920's, when the codes first started mandating indoor plumbing, there were concerns about cost and that it only applies to new homes. At that time, less than 3 percent of the homes in the United States had indoor plumbing. Out houses worked fine, why increase the cost of a home? Today, nobody complains that indoor plumbing is mandated by the government. In 90 years, the people will laugh that we argued against the mandate of residential sprinklers.

Posted: 6:01 pm on September 18th
Click to expand...
 
The cost depends on where you live.

I am in an area of CA where the closest C-16 contractor is 150 miles (and 3 hrs. in good weather) away, one way. Couple this with the fact that 75% of the county are on private wells so that tanks, pumps, etc. are needed; it could become cost prohibitive very fast. ;)

I am tired of having to enforce legislation that is forced on every jurisdiction in the state of CA. CA is not a cookie cutter state where "one size fits all".

Anyone remember the private sewage system debacle? An additional $10 - 20K for an engineered septic system based on studies of two locales in the LA area. Lucky it wasn't enacted or we would have ZERO building here now.

(puts away soapbox)

Sue, where the west still lives....sort of........ ;)
 
Don't forget Sue, California has passed a regulation that all sprinkler fitters have to be graduates of a union apprenticeship program, if you see any without pocket identification cards better call your nearest License Board deputy, these things better be installed properly or you going to have some destroyed buildings, to say nothing of unhappy people.
 
conarb said:
Don't forget Sue, California has passed a regulation that all sprinkler fitters have to be graduates of a union apprenticeship program, if you see any without pocket identification cards better call your nearest License Board deputy, these things better be installed properly or you going to have some destroyed buildings, to say nothing of unhappy people.
Click to expand...
Oh, don't I know that one! It's gets better everyday......not!

An interesting comment on the petition from a local designer - paraphrased - It sure is interesting that both inspectors signed the petition. The designer and a local contractor both have signed the petition.

Sue, where the west still lives......
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Uh Oh Look who the cat drug in .....Forensics :)

http://www.pmengineer.com/Articles/Ballanco/2011/01/01/The-Engineering-Dilemma

PM Engineer

January 2011

The Engineering Dilemma

Product liability and the "800-pound gorilla"

The current edition of PM Engineer contains a very interesting article about engineering design and liability. The article, titled The Engineering Dilemma written by Julius Ballanco, PE ponders very interesting questions about possible liability to professional engineers who do not include home fire sprinkler systems in one- and two-family homes and townhomes designs, as required by model codes. Click here and turn to page 6 to read the article in its entirety.

This article by Mr. Ballanco prompted me to write this post and offer my own outlook on the issue. Delving into the realm of the proverbial "800-pound gorilla in the room" I also explore the possibility that the first fire death or significant injury that ocurs in a home built without fire sprinklers after January 1, 2011 may result in defective product litigation. The standard of home fire safety has been set. All model codes now require fire sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and townhomes. National model codes represent minimum standards of safety. Doesn't it make sense to deduce that homes built without fire sprinkler systems are then defective; substandard?

I had a conversation with an attorney whose firm has been involved in asbestos litigation. From this attorney I learned about “constructive knowledge” and product liability laws. I was curious and continued my research on the subject and found this definition of product liability from Cornell University’s Legal Information Institute: “Products liability refers to the liability of any or all parties along the chain of manufacture of any product for damage caused by that product. This includes the manufacturer of component parts (at the top of the chain), an assembling manufacturer, the wholesaler, and the retail store owner (at the bottom of the chain). Products containing inherent defects that cause harm to a consumer of the product, or someone to whom the product was loaned, given, etc., are the subjects of products liability suits. While products are generally thought of as tangible personal property, products liability has stretched that definition to include intangibles (gas), naturals (pets), real estate (house), and writings (navigational charts)."

Will the “smoking gun” to prove constructive knowledge in the case of new homes built without fire sprinklers after January 1, 2011 be the many postings on builder association’s websites, talking points and documented testimony by homebuilders that new homes are safe, that smoke alarms are enough, and that fire sprinklers are not necessary?

Also on the record are the safety professional’s testimonies and the well publicized incidents and scientific evidence proving that new homes do burn, that they may pose a greater risk when lightweight construction used to build most modern homes is exposed to fire; along with other architectural features and contents of modern homes that contribute to a more toxic environment, and faster fire growth and extension.

It is truly a sad state of affairs when home buyer protection may be overlooked in the pursuit of profits. Is it possible that we will have to wait for a tragedy and product liability litigation before all new homes in our country are equipped with this life safety system? Fire sprinklers will prevent thousands of needless fire deaths. I hope the policy makers take a long, hard look at the issue before making a decision (if only from a product liability perspective) and do the right thing for the US consumer and for future generations of home buyers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top