Hello everyone, I'm new to the forum and could use some help. I'm from western Illinois, and we our getting some resistance from home builders regarding the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems. Do any communities that you are aware of offer an "opt-out" option for homeowners, so they do not have to comply with residential fire sprinkler code?
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Residential fire sprinkler systems
- Thread starter Inspector
- Start date
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure if you would call this opt out
HBA President's Blog: Fire Sprinklers "Mandatory Option" is Just what the Doctor Ordered!
Do you want a sprinkler system ?
No
Ok
HBA President's Blog: Fire Sprinklers "Mandatory Option" is Just what the Doctor Ordered!
Do you want a sprinkler system ?
No
Ok
FM William Burns
REGISTERED
Inspector,
I moved this thread to this area for potentially greater coverage. You may want to look into the City of Elmhurst's amendments.
I moved this thread to this area for potentially greater coverage. You may want to look into the City of Elmhurst's amendments.
Hoem sprinklers
Here in NYS it is still a battle but not required by local codes as yet. No matter how much it shows they save lives, the dollar
always seems to win out.
Does Illinois require sprinklers in private homes by code ? If so, the builders have very little to say at this point except to comply.Inspector said:
Here in NYS it is still a battle but not required by local codes as yet. No matter how much it shows they save lives, the dollar
always seems to win out.
AegisFPE
Silver Member
You may consider writing your own "opt-out" provision.
An opt-out alternative could include requiring interconnected smoke alarms throughout the dwelling unit and/or providing access to grade or a landing a maximum of some distance (say max sill height + max no-guard deck height) below each EERO, or a permanent ladder or other acceptable emergency means of self-rescue at each EERO to grade.
Such a provision would provide more life safety for the occupants in the event of a fire than more robust framing having been used as an alternative.
An opt-out alternative could include requiring interconnected smoke alarms throughout the dwelling unit and/or providing access to grade or a landing a maximum of some distance (say max sill height + max no-guard deck height) below each EERO, or a permanent ladder or other acceptable emergency means of self-rescue at each EERO to grade.
Such a provision would provide more life safety for the occupants in the event of a fire than more robust framing having been used as an alternative.
fatboy
Administrator
Welcome Peter1963!
Hope you stick around and contribute!
Hope you stick around and contribute!
globe trekker
REGISTERED
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,739
Inspector & Peter1963,
Welcome to both of you, to the building Codes Forum!
Inspector,
Some jurisdictions have been / are providing options to the RFS requirement.
Some, as AegisFPE mentioned, are requiring interconnected smokes
throughout the residence, ...additional MOE built in, and nominal lumber
framing versus engineered I-joists.
In this juridisction, as we prepare to adopt the 2012 edition of the I-codes,
the FCO wants language adopted to give the option of either using nominal
sized lumber (similar to heavy timber type), or an approved type of RFS.
The math (costs) of installing actual nominal sized lumber will probably be
more than an RFS.
In your jurisdiction, these are issues to be decided by your elected officials.
Yeah, it's still a "hot buttom" issue. I see it as the Fire lobby versus the home
builders lobby.
Peter1963,
When it comes down to a matter of the dollar, ..you see what we got for
30 pieces of silver. D`OH !!
.
Welcome to both of you, to the building Codes Forum!
Inspector,
Some jurisdictions have been / are providing options to the RFS requirement.
Some, as AegisFPE mentioned, are requiring interconnected smokes
throughout the residence, ...additional MOE built in, and nominal lumber
framing versus engineered I-joists.
In this juridisction, as we prepare to adopt the 2012 edition of the I-codes,
the FCO wants language adopted to give the option of either using nominal
sized lumber (similar to heavy timber type), or an approved type of RFS.
The math (costs) of installing actual nominal sized lumber will probably be
more than an RFS.
In your jurisdiction, these are issues to be decided by your elected officials.
Yeah, it's still a "hot buttom" issue. I see it as the Fire lobby versus the home
builders lobby.
Peter1963,
When it comes down to a matter of the dollar, ..you see what we got for
30 pieces of silver. D`OH !!
.
AegisFPE
Silver Member
To support your effort, consider the 2008 NFPA report which cites that there is a 99.45% chance of surviving a home fire when working smoke alarms are present. In the 2011 NFPA Report that survival rate is up to 99.59% for hardwired smoke alarms (99.99% with hardwired smoke alarms and wet pipe sprinkler protection).
This is based on the current hardwired arrangement, involving bedrooms and immediate hallway only. It seems like there should be a reasonable alternative to make up for that less than half-a-percent difference.
Compare these statistics to the 2008 Traffic Safety Facts which shows the chances of surviving a motor vehicle crash is 99.42%. Interestingly enough, while the number of traffic fatalities has generally been trending down, that 99.4% has remained unchanged for 20 years.
It would seem convenient from a policy-maker's perspective that the statistics of surviving a home with modern smoke alarms or a vehicle crash is comparable, and there is not a large margin to be gained by absolutely mandating sprinklers.
This is based on the current hardwired arrangement, involving bedrooms and immediate hallway only. It seems like there should be a reasonable alternative to make up for that less than half-a-percent difference.
Compare these statistics to the 2008 Traffic Safety Facts which shows the chances of surviving a motor vehicle crash is 99.42%. Interestingly enough, while the number of traffic fatalities has generally been trending down, that 99.4% has remained unchanged for 20 years.
It would seem convenient from a policy-maker's perspective that the statistics of surviving a home with modern smoke alarms or a vehicle crash is comparable, and there is not a large margin to be gained by absolutely mandating sprinklers.
