• 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.

Water Purveyor Rejects Multipurpose Sprinkler Taps

F

forensics

Bronze Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
95
Location
The holy City CHARLESTON SC
Here we go again.....

A local small water system here in South Carolina has ruled that they will not allow a homeowner of a three story beachfront home to combine the domestic water system and the residential sprinkler in a single tap.

The Board of Water would not respond to a request for the logic behind their decision.

Testimony was presented that included the following points;

1) The sprinkler system when connected to the single tap was valued at about $1.90 PSF (heated) and the cost was impacted by more than $6,000 to bring the cost PSF to $2.80

2) The necessity to provide a DC BFP added an additional cost per year (for testing and maintenance) to almost as much as the entire system when considered as impact to the mortgage portion of the house payments

3) The "stand alone" system required annual testing of the system because the domestic water could not be considered to "prove" the system on a daily basis

4) The comparision was made between the impact when thousands of gallons of water are pumped onto a fire as compared to the one hundred of so gallons of water discharged on the fire in its incepient stage

5) The runoff and contamination of the groundwater and the open water bodies from the large scale water flow in a fire

6) The fire water was unmetered as compared to the multipurpose system which utilized the metered connection

7) The homeowner was taking the initiative to provide his first tier of fire protection and therefore lowering the town's exposure and risk

8) Both the homeowner and the firefighters would enjoy a significant reduction in the life safety equation when the sprinklers were employed

Without regard to these issues they elected to force the owner to go the more expensive route even though they were well informed as to the benefits of residential multipurpose sprinkler systems.

Once again here is a prime example of the very agency that is charged with serving and protecting the public placing impediments on the widespread implemintation of these proven life saving systems

----SHEESH

So what is your water departments position on this issue???
 
forensics said:
Here we go again.....----SHEESH

So what is your water departments position on this issue???
Click to expand...
It's obvious, they want to make more money! They will get an additional tap fee and probably a minimum usage fee on that meter. Points #4-#8 are valid either way and they don't care about additional costs for the homeowner!
 
From a AHJ standpoint, I'd tell them to kiss my grits, and I have. In my neck of the woods, their control stops at the curbstop, period. If it meets the adopted code, and I will take into account the clean water act, then go for it. We have some platted townhouse lots that didn't get completed in the boom, now they are starting to finish out. Rather than making them tear up the street to get a fireline in, we are accepting an engineered design off the domestic. Our water department wanted a dedicated line, I said, sorry, not happening, my call.
 
fatboy said:
From a AHJ standpoint, I'd tell them to kiss my grits, and I have. In my neck of the woods, their control stops at the curbstop. water department wanted a dedicated line, I said, sorry, not happening, my call.
Click to expand...
Good on you!
 
I've heard the arguments from both sides of this issue.

The only thing I can see different is IF the domestic water gets cut off for any reason the sprinkler system should stay active with separate meters.
 
Well, that was the rule in a former jurisdiction I worked in. City sprinkler ordinance had been in place for more than 10 years when I started there.
 
pyrguy said:
I've heard the arguments from both sides of this issue.The only thing I can see different is IF the domestic water gets cut off for any reason the sprinkler system should stay active with separate meters.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't the sprinkler water getting cut-off depend on where the sprinkler tap was made? Before or after the potable water tap?
 
No....separate meter, separate feed.....the big problem with a separate service on a residential dwelling is that the monitoring of the tamper off-site just wouldn't happen (or at least be confirmed here in CA.) unless under ordinance.....that's why a combination feed and a main control valve serving both domestic and sprinklers are preferred....if the toilet's don't flush, you know someone shut the valve off
 
fatboy said:
You don't have monitoring in a IRC (I know your CA) P2904 system, they are either on, or off.
Click to expand...
FB,....exactly.....either on or off....even if your system is monitored off-site (if required by local ordinance)....a closed tamper being a supervisory signal, may or may not make it back to the owner from the monitoring company....not a good route to take....a main control valve for both systems with a second domestic valve on the domestic leg provides better odds on keeping the water on
 
I think fireguy was pointing out that the sprinkler tap could be made upstream of the meter, without a seperate tap on the main. This way, shutting the domestic water off at the meter (for non-payment, etc.) would still allow water to reach sprinklers.

I really don't see water purveyors allowing this to happen, and I understand why. However, the purveyor in the OP is clearly wrong (IMO).
 
Yes permitguy, that was my intent. Thank you for the claification

Water sellers apparantly do not know that a sprinkler system, metered or not, will use less water than a fire truck. Are fire hydrants metered anyplace?

The two municiple departments I worked for did not meter the hydrants. However, one city mgr pushed into place a scheme that charged sprinklered builidngs a "standbye fee". One building owner removed the sprinkler system and thus avoided the "standby fee". Now we are going to charge a "put the sprinkler system back fee".
 
Consider this, if the water purveyor turns off the domestic water to the building and there is a single tap from the water main the building that supplies both domestic water and fire sprinkler water, the building is now uninhabitable, it lacks water for sanitary and other potable water needs, therefore the occupants should be out of the building. A building without inhabitants does not need a residential sprinkler system.

Residential sprinkler systems are designed to prevent flashover and to allow time for occupants to escape before the environment in the home untenable for life. Secondary benefits of residential sprinklers are reduction in property loss and firefighter safety.

Another way to deal with the cost of second water tapes for fire sprinkler systems is to install a tank and pump for the fire sprinkler system, fill up the tank with a hose, no cross connection problem, no separate fire protect water line needed.

There are also fire sprinkler system that are design to function as potable water supply for the buildings, the heads have multiple taps so there is an interconnect for the cold water plumbing fixtures in the home, and multiple feeds to the sprinkler heads, this solve the stagnate water problem and many of the water supplier problems.
 
In the real world, people are rarely thrown out of their homes for having their water shut off. Even in the rare case that the process is initiated, it usually takes weeks to go through the legalities of notifying them of a property maintenance code violation, giving them time to respond, etc. People don't suddenly pack a bag and leave when they come home to find their water shut off.

If there is a reliable source of water from a local purveyor, there is no need for tanks and pumps. We can't just give up - we need to continue educating purveyors who are still struggling with the facts.

As for the rest, I think you're preaching to the choir. ;)
 
Really not an issue. Most states have been smart enough to amend rfs out of the residential code. And you can plan on more of the same when the 2012 comes up.
 
"Now we are going to charge a "put the sprinkler system back fee"."

LMAO, 'put the sprinkler system back fee'. I gotta remember that one.
 
"Really not an issue. Most states have been smart enough to amend rfs out of the residential code. And you can plan on more of the same when the 2012 comes up."

REALLY!?! If every single homebuilder and narrow-minded building official in the country elects to work to kill residential sprinklers that will not keep the really intellegent choice of residential sprinklers from being a good idea.

We are seeing new customers for residential sprinklers every day!

At less than $2 PSF (heated) it seems rather stupid NOT to add a few sprinkler heads into the plumbing cold water distribution system!

Residential sprinklers are being installed by the plumbers in SC and the demand is increasing every day .... We saw over a dozen new systems and Retrofits in the month of October alone!

SORRY INCOGNITO the anti-life safety group is WRONG again.

I am betting that the EDUCATED home buyers will opt for the sprinklers the vast majority of the time ... especially when they costabout the same as the BS instant water heaters .... The buyer can always add a renai later but the sprinklers need to go in with the rough plumbing
 
forensics, It is always difficult for uninformed zeolots to keep their story straight. First you have numerous retrofits in October alone, then you claim that sprinklers need to go in with the rough plumbing. You need to open your eyes and mind. Those opposed to rfs are not anti-life safety. We just are not ignorant enough to accept at face value the biased pr campaign of NFPA and NFSA that the fire folks blindly accept as factual. And if home buyers want them, I am 110% in favor of them having them. If rfs are such a great thing you will not need to have them required by the IRC. Home buyers will willingly and volutarily insist on them or builders will install them as a marketing tool.
 
Just when I was starting to think someone had finally learned not to take the bait . . .

NEWS FLASH - You're both right, and you're both wrong. You aren't going to change each other's minds on this. Get over it.
 
forensics said:
"Residential sprinklers are being installed by the plumbers in SC and the demand is increasing every day .... We saw over a dozen new systems and Retrofits in the month of October alone!SORRY INCOGNITO the anti-life safety group is WRONG again.

foresics,

a whole 12 systems! how can the local installers keep up with the out of control volume? must be a huge waiting list?:mrgreen:. let the market control the sprinkler requirement, not the code.
Click to expand...
 
I am not much of a big government kind of guy, and I would love to enforce less rather than more code. I would however trade in a heart beat the entire energy conservation code for sprinklers in one and two family dwellings.

NFPA or NFSA kool-aid or not, sprinklers save lives, and the extremely rigid green codes will save nothing (not even Solyndra).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top