• 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

U.S. Fire Administration “Residential Sprinkler Water Supplies”

Mark:That's all well and good for them to say, but in the real world the Santa Clara County fire marshal is requiring a home I have in for permit to have 15,000 gallons for sprinkled, 5,000 domestic and a separate 10,000 gallon source for the sprinkers because of cross-contamination, total additional cost for sprinklers for a 4,000 square foot home is in excess of $200,000 not including the additional lifetime insurance costs. I already have the one 5,000 gallon domestic water stainless steel tank in along with the 48Kw emergency generator for construction purposes (tank is on the left behind the propane tanks, if I lose the battle of qualifying as a "remodel" and get classified as a "new home" I will need two more 5,000 gallon tanks).

View attachment 202

View attachment 202

/monthly_2010_07/2020-generator..jpg.8f317c97426c1ba353bbb74d701bff4c.jpg
 
Well conarb as I see it Mark's link only requires a 10 minute supply where as the Santa Clara county fire marshal needs 2 hours. That sure is a pretty slow response time.

do they still use horse drawn equipment there? ;)
 
The code requires up to a 30 minute supply in rural areas

2006 IFC

B103.3 Areas without water supply systems.

For information regarding water supplies for fire-fighting purposes in rural and suburban areas in which adequate and reliable water supply systems do not exist, the fire code official is authorized to utilize NFPA 1142 or the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.

2006 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code.

404.5 Adequate water supply.

Adequate water supply shall be determined for purposes of initial attack and flame front control as follows:

1. One- and two-family dwellings. The required water supply for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire area that does not exceed 3,600 square feet (334 m2) shall be 1,000 gallons per minute (63.1 L/s) for a minimum duration of 30 minutes. The required water supply for one- and two-family dwellings having a fire area in excess of 3,600 square feet (334 m2) shall be 1,500 gallons per minute (95 L/s) for a minimum duration of 30 minutes.

Exception: A reduction in required flow rate of 50 percent, as approved by the code official, is allowed when the building is provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system.
 
Log Cabin:

The code can say 30 minutes but the AHJ can increase that time, and they may have good reason here to go to 2 hours, what am I suppose to do, sue them? It's been my experience over the last half century that fire marshals have unlimited discretion.
 
Log Cabin:

No, they won't allow it.

Santa Clara County said:
7. Why do I need to install two water tanks for my residential project?
space.gif
The Primary tank holds the water necessary for domestic, irrigation, or industrial use, in addition to your fire sprinkler water supply. The Secondary tank supplies water to the Wharf Hydrant for firefighting purposes. The double tank system was devised to avoid possible contamination of the domestic water supply from the tank of the fire engine, as required by the County Plumbing Code. We require the combination of domestic and fire sprinkler supply in one tank to provide a degree of reliability for the fire sprinkler system as people are most likely to ensure that fresh water is available for other necessary uses at all times. See Standards CFMO W1 & CFMO W5 for details by clicking on related link below.

13. Can I use my swimming pool or pond as my fire protection water supply?
space.gif


No. Above-ground tanks have proven to provide the most reliable source of water for fire protection needs.

History has shown us that swimming pools are not a reliable source of water due to seasonal draining, cracks, repairs, etc. Ponds contain mud, silt and wildlife, which can seriously damage fire department equipment during drafting operations. Also, it is difficult to provide an instant supply of water at the hydrant due to the elevation differences between the water level of the pool or pond and the hydrant outlet. In addition, access to such water supply can be very difficult as pools are required to be fenced and secured, and ponds are usually located far from approved access roads designed to support the weight of a fire engine.¹
Click to expand...
¹ http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/fmo/faq#null
 
And who is going to insure that the secondary tank is monitored and will always be full? There's probably valves on it that will be able to be shut off.....just saying...
 
The 2 hour requirement mirrors ISO requirements - It sounds like the Santa Clara Fire Marshal is sspreading the love amonst all people in the S/D. It really sounds like a typical developer solution - Make the home owner pay or provide fire protection when building on their lot instead of providing the S/D infrastructure up front prior o housing being constructed.

(JMHO)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The IRC doesn't require that much. 7 or 10 minutes (as I recall, since I loaned my 09 IRC out).. NFPA 13D is a little different... but since it's written by NFPA, I'm sure there are lots of FPN and exceptions.
 
The 13D system is a life safety system. It is designed to prevent flashover and allow time to exit the structure. I do not know anyone that takes 2 hours to exit the structure. These FM's are trying to do something that a 13D is not designed to do, save the structure.
 
Conarb stated "It's been my experience over the last half century that fire marshals have unlimited discretion."

Is this 2 hour requirement a part of the California Fire Code or a local ordinance or is it something that the Fire Marshal is personally requiring?

If it is a personal requirement of the Fire Marshal what is the legal basis for his making such a requirement?
 
If Conarb is building in the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District

Responsible for an area of some 250 square miles with eight stations thats over 31 Sq miles per station.

Depending on where he is building, and the limited access, and the Fire Protection District is discussing closing two stations

Extending the time requirement is valid.

The CA Fire Code is based on the IFC but a city, county or city and county may establish more restrictive building standards reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.

Their not interested in saving Dick, their out to save the next owner.....
 
If the argument is that because of the fire department response time the sprinkler system must be operational for 2 hours in order to provide life safety level of protection to subject property as well as adjacent properties I can accept it. This assumes several things, first that the two hours is based on some defendable time estimate and not just made up, similar criteria is applied to other residences, and the local jurisdiction has formally ammended the local fire code to reflect this requirement.

A quick search on-line failed to find any local amendments to the CFC by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District or the cities of Brentwood and Oakley.
 
Mark K said:
Conarb stated "It's been my experience over the last half century that fire marshals have unlimited discretion."Is this 2 hour requirement a part of the California Fire Code or a local ordinance or is it something that the Fire Marshal is personally requiring?

If it is a personal requirement of the Fire Marshal what is the legal basis for his making such a requirement?
Click to expand...
In the part of California where I do business (San Diego County) there is a local fire code that has been adopted by all of the fire departments in the county. It was updated in 2009, after the last series of conflagrations that swept through the county and it's very restrictive. As Conarb points out, the fire marshals have almost unlimited discretion. We have a current project that almost got torpedoed because of the new code. We had another project for an apartment building that never got off the ground due to the increased width for fire truck access than had been previously required; It's another example of bureaucracy run wild. Sure, things will be safer and safer, but the real result is more and more people are priced out of the market. The final result will be the safest structure in the world and no one will be able to afford to buy it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mark:The area I'm trying to build in is Santa Clara County, the East County District now in the news is about 100 miles east, the East County District is rather large, they can't justify building a firehouse way out in the sticks, so they subcontract fire protection to CalFire, they are trying to end that station to save money, it's just a portable building.

Contra Costa Times said:
The East Contra Costa district decided to close the Marsh Creek station in part because of the low volume of calls -- about 60 over the course of the winter season, fire district board President Erick Stonebarger said. With a $366,000 contract, those are expensive calls, especially when other stations get more than five calls per day.Morgan said the contract should be reinstated because residents in the area pay about $400,000 annually in fire district taxes, more than the CalFire contract cost.¹
Click to expand...

Actually, CalFire is comprised of state firefighters who are paid much less than the local firefighters, but to save money the district is trying to extend the range of the local firefighters, the problem is that the extended range will double or eliminate insurance coverage for the property owners. The owners point is that they pay $400,000, more than what it costs the district, the district's point is that they could pocket that $366,000 it costs them and use their local firefighters who they are paying anyway. Fire districts are being hit with enormous pension and benefit costs, with all the press about it they can't really ask for more money, so they are trying to save money without laying off personnel. ¹ http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_16398774?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com&nclick_check=1/monthly_2010_10/572953ba01f60_firestation.JPG.3673bf25aed44aefa378cc0943201059.JPG
 
The same legal constraints that apply to building officials apply to Fire Marshalls. They may have discretion in interpreting the fire code but they cannot impose new requirements without due process. Unless somebody can establish the legal authority for imposing the 2 hour sprinkler requirement then it appears that the fire marshall is acting illegally.

The local jurisdiction appears to have the authority to adopt a regulation requiring the 2 hour sprinkler requirement but until they do so I do not see how they have the authority to enforce the requirement.
 
Mark:

The fire marshals can be very persuasive at Boards of Supervisors or City Councils getting their prerogatives adopted into ordinances, the building inspectors are limited to enforcing code, code that has been state law for the last 12 years here. I posted information on their ordinance above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top