Did you know that the new building code requires fire sprinklers in all new one- and two-family homes and town houses? The code appears in the 2009 IRC, but doesn’t go into effect until the start of 2011. When New Hampshire adopts the code, my understanding is that the provision for fire sprinklers could be made optional but this is probably doubtful. In other words, sprinklers will most likely be mandated as of 2011.
The whole purpose of fire sprinklers is to save lives but there are people out there who think otherwise. Many are passionately opposed to the new requirement and are spending a lot of time and money trying to block the code from being adopted.
Why?
Those who oppose the mandate say they’re concerned about the potential of pipes freezing in colder climates, damage from accidental discharge of sprinkler heads, and the availability of adequate water supply in homes served by well water. Let’s take a look at those arguments…
Frozen pipes?
I think most of this concern relates to a standalone system, which is a system of piping separate from the home’s plumbing. The water in these pipes is stagnant until a sprinkler head activates. Stagnant water is more susceptible to freezing than moving water (backflow valves are required to prevent contaminating the water supply), but what are the chances of water freezing in a heated home that is properly insulated? And don’t we take precautions in new construction to protect all piping from freezing? Obviously, all pipes containing water need to be installed on the warm side of the insulation! An alternative to the standalone system is multipurpose systems; the piping in these systems is part of the home’s cold-water line, often made of PEX (which is less susceptible to freeze damage), and the water’s always moving. Concern about frozen pipes is a pretty lame argument.
Accidental discharge?
Sprinkler heads are activated by very high heat, like the kind that isn’t likely unless there are flames present (155°F-175°F, depending on the type of head). So only the head(s) closest to the flames actually discharge water. Research shows that chances of an accidental discharge due to a defect in the sprinkler head are 1 in 16,000,000.
Well water?
The NFPA 13D (the National Fire Protection Association’s residential-sprinkler code) requires enough water for two sprinkler heads (which use about 26 gpm combined) to discharge for 10 minutes (for homes over 2000 sq. ft.; it’s 7 minutes for smaller homes). Achieving that volume can be accomplished by a pressure tank(s), a bladder tank(s), a storage tank(s), a cistern, a well equipped to draw that amount—or a combination of these.
It’s got to be the cost!
Most people—including those opposed to the code—get wound up about the cost. Money’s tight all around these days, so any increase in construction cost is certainly a concern here. But the cost is much less than you probably think. Costs can range quite a bit around the country, from 87¢ to $4 per sq. ft. (materials and installation). The average is about $1.50 per sq. ft., which typically comes out to about 1% to 2% of total construction cost for modest homes and much less for upper end homes. Our experience has been that it is about $2.00 per sq. ft. locally and less than 1% of the total cost of our homes. So, for our clients, having a fire sprinkler installed in a nicely finished 3,000-sq.-ft. home will cost about $6,000. That’s pretty cheap insurance in my opinion for a $900,000 home. Think of what it would cost to repair the smoke and water damage from even a minor fire that was put out using the fire department; more than $6,000 I would wager! And speaking of insurance, I would think that you would get a pretty nice discount from your homeowner’s insurance for having a home protected by a fire sprinkler system.
Now, consider that fire sprinklers and smoke alarms combined reduce the risk of death by 82%. And in the 20 years that Scottsdale, Ariz., has had fire sprinklers on the books, no one has died from a fire in a home equipped with sprinklers.
Is it worth the extra expense? What do you think?
Tags: cost, fire sprinkler, square foot price
TOM FAHEY
Union Leader State House Bureau Chief
CONCORD – The state board that oversees building codes voted Dec. 11 to require sprinkler systems in every new home starting in 2012, but debate on the idea is not over. Two bills in the Legislature this year would bar the state from enforcing the vote by the Building Code Review Board. One of them also would block cities and towns from enacting sprinkler rules or from enforcing existing requirements.
Donald Bliss, chairman of the BCRB, said the panel set April 2012 as an effective date to give builders, plumbers and others time to train, for one thing. “Having a breathing period for people to calm down a little and sort through it is not a bad idea either,” Bliss said. Estimates are that the systems will cost about $3,200 for a 2,000 square foot house. The National Fire Protection Association puts the cost at between 1 and 1.5 percent of a home’s construction costs.
Rep. Susi Nord, D-Candia, is the prime sponsor of HB 1486, banning municipal and state government sprinkler rules. She is co-sponsor of a second bill, which bars the state from requiring them in single- and multi-family homes. “My intent is not to have the state tell local people what to do on this topic. There is an unbelievable amount of cost this will add for people,” she said. “I’m concerned about the cost of housing.” She noted that the systems require separate water supplies, extra plumbing and installation expense.
Rep. Warren Groen, R-Rochester, co-sponsor on HB 1191, said the building code change, “is just wild overreach on the part of state government.” He and his brother, partners in a home-building business, joined other contractors to fight a similar rule at city hall in Rochester. “What I said to them was, if people want to buy a sprinkler system, feel free. Let the market decide who has them. Government shouldn’t decide,” he said.
New Hampshire Homebuilder and Remodelers Association Executive Director Kendall Buck has argued that smoke alarms are a cost-effective alternative. He said in September that from 2001 to 2004, only 12 percent of fatal fires occurred in buildings that had operating smoke alarms.
State Fire Marshal William Degnan supports the sprinkler code, and said he will testify against the bills at public hearings Jan. 7. “I know these things are proper and therefore I’m going to be promoting them. What it boils down to is these things save lives,” he said. “We have no financial interest in this. Our role as government officials is to look at what’s best for the public.”
National Fire Sprinkler Association President John Viniello said sprinklers are a proven success in 30 years of use in commercial buildings. He noted the systems are endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association. “It’s like having a fireman on duty in your house 24 hours day,” he said. Viniello said the two House bills, “would be a giant step backward” for fire safety. The cost of sprinklers is equivalent to the cost of granite counter tops or a carpeting upgrade, he said. He and Degnan both noted that the construction industry’s shift toward lightweight materials gives sprinklers another edge over smoke alarms. The new materials burn through quickly, Degnan said, which poses serious danger to residents trying to escape, and to firefighters who need to enter a burning house.
Viniello said four states have adopted the home sprinkler requirements in the national code — New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware. California is expected to adopt them within the next two months, he said. Nord said she thinks the idea is moving too fast for New Hampshire. She said she voted to require sprinklers in an elderly housing development in Candia while she served on the local planning board. “That may seem hypocritical now, to sponsor a bill to bar them,” she said. Her main intent was to get a bill before the Legislature. “I think it’s a discussion we need to have,” she said.