Decision expected next year on requiring sprinklers
STEVE HELBER/AP
State Fire Marshal Ed Altizer (center) listens during a public hearing before the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development on sprinklers.
Builders in Virginia won't be required to install sprinkler systems in new homes -- at least for now.
Firefighters hope that will change, as the Virginia Board of Housing and Community Development considers whether to adopt regulations regarding residential sprinkler systems.
The board voted yesterday, after a public hearing, to move proposals for residential sprinklers through the regulatory process in Virginia.
Firefighters say sprinkler systems save lives. Home builders say the requirement would add thousands of dollars to the cost of homes in an already soft market.
A final decision on the regulation and whether it will be optional or mandatory is expected in the spring, said Hollie Cammarasana, spokeswoman for the Virginia board.
Firefighters argue that the installation of sprinkler systems is already optional. Builders want to keep it that way. "As long as it is an option, we are not opposed," said Barrett Hardiman, spokesman for the Home Builders Association of Virginia.
The debate was sparked by the International Code Council, a membership association dedicated to building safety and fire prevention, which approved a code this year calling for the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new oneand two-family homes.
Several localities across the country, including Prince George's County, Md., and Scottsdale, Ariz., have adopted mandatory home-sprinkler regulations. No state has adopted the requirement.
The Virginia Chamber of Commerce is opposed to mandating the installation of fire sprinklers in new single-family houses, duplexes and town houses of three stories or less.
"Our greatest concern is with how an increase in the cost of production will damage efforts to develop more affordable housing and how that would affect economic development in Virginia," said Tyler Craddock, a chamber spokesman.
Art Lipscomb, spokesman for the Virginia Professional Firefighters, compared the argument against sprinkler systems to the same claims made in the 1970s by the auto industry regarding air bags.
The argument then was that air bags would make cars too expensive for most people, he said. But the cost and safety of air bags are no longer disputed.
The average cost to repair fire damage in a house with a sprinkler system is $2,900, compared with $40,000 without a system, Lipscomb said.
The initial cost for a home with a sprinkler system would be higher, but the higher price could be recouped in lower insurance premiums, he said.
The cost is a subject of debate. Firefighters claim the national average to install a system is an additional $1.60 per square foot.
Kevin McNulty, president of Lifestyle Builders & Developers Inc. in Midlothian, estimated the cost at $2.66 a square foot, which would add $5,000 to the cost of an 1,800-square-foot home.
"And that assumes the house in on a public water and sewer system," McNulty said.
A house in a rural area with a well-water system would cost even more, because a holding tank and separate system would be necessary, he said.
"We don't need the additional stress on the home-building industry and the consumers, especially in this environment," McNulty said.
The building industry has suffered through one its worst declines in decades.
"We don't believe it's a cost-effective way to deal with a public-safety issue," McNulty said. The focus should be on properly functioning smoke detectors, he said.
Charlottesville Fire Chief Charles Werner, spokesman for the Virginia Fire Chiefs Association, said the argument shouldn't be all or nothing.
"Home builders and firefighters need to come together to see if we can come up with a middle ground," he said.
It's important to sort out the truths and the myths, Werner said. "The most important thing is to start a dialogue. The issue is complex and emotional."
Yesterday's board decision calls for creating work groups that represent different interests to come up with a consensus position and a recommendation to the board.
Contact Carol Hazard at (804) 775-8023 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Last post from me. Yes, the experiences in VA are representative of the national fire problem in that most residential fires are due to cooking. However, those fires are not the leading cause of fire deaths. These are life safety systems, designed primarily to ensure occupants can escape the home safely. It should be noted that the injury rate for kitchen/cooking fires is fairly high but most do not result in severe injuries. The USFA attributes these injuries primarily to civilians trying to control or extinguish the fire rather than exiting. I’m not faulting people from trying to correct a bad situation and I’d do the same thing with the extinguisher in my kitchen. Unfortunately, there are still thousands of people getting injured or killed in bedrooms and other areas of the home.
To keep arguing about the cost/benefit, remodeling, new/old home requirements will likely not result in anyone changing their opinion. There are just too many “what if” scenarios and ways to look at the cost. In my opinion, trying to determine a payback period based on national numbers doesn’t make sense and it’s hard to put a price on a life. This is a long term issue and if we continue to ignore the problem, it will never get corrected. That’s why we should start trying to protect in new construction. Eventually, these will be older homes and the occupants could be our children or grandchildren. I hope they are as safe in their homes as possible.
BTW, the simplest way to prevent accidental discharge is to use concealed sprinklers. They are basically covered by a flat plate that is very inconspicuous. Again, residential is different than commercial.
As this is my last post, I’ll just conclude by agreeing that yes, this is a difficult decision and there will be costs involved. Hopefully the final decision will be based on the best and most unbiased information available. From what I’ve seen so far, states are being very careful and diligent as they search for the best answer. I thank all of you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and opinions in a civilized “discussion” and hope you all feel the same.
lfd221, How far do we go in making new homes safe? People fall down stairs all the time, Do we eliminate stairs and make all new homes single story? And in the states this regulation has been adopted in, the regulation has been extended to older homes when remodeling takes place which makes normal remodeling prohibitively expensive. No one can keep a straight face and tell homeowners that if this is adopted that it won’t be extended to older homes in time. If the adoption of this regulation makes any kind of economic sense in a cost to benefit ratio, why haven’t the insurance companies recognized this by lowering premiums in states where this has been mandated? Why aren’t the insurance companies clamoring for the adoption of this regulation?
I maintain that not every mandated regulation for safety makes economic sense. We make trade offs in risk assessment everyday and this regulation is so onerous and costly that it just doesn’t pass the cost to benefit test. This decision is best left to the home-owner.
According to VAFIRE.com The leading cause of residential fires is “cooking”. Why not concentrate on knocking back the leading cause of residential fires in VA? The second leading cause is “unknown” and I gather that is because in many cases there aren’t enough investigators to make a determination or someone has determined that cost to fully investigate the cause of the fire isn’t worth the benefit of knowing.
Sprinkler systems are great safety devices however they inherently bring along their own trade offs and problems and costs. Which should be like any other costly decision a home-owner makes when deciding what features are going to be a part of their home.
No one has any problem with mandating smoke and carbon monoxide detectors because the cost is so little compared to the benefit. Quite frankly the benefits gained from detectors are so great compared to the costs it doesn’t make sense not to have detectors. The same can not be said for sprinklers
lfd,
Ok, I’ll use your numbers 5.5 billion / 5000 = 1,100,000 (homes sprinkled)that’s 108 years (I wont be around at that time either. “New construction” includes additions / renovations to existing homes thereby through the back door forcing people to include sprinkler systems into their existing homes. You mentioned in a prior post that you “sell” sprinkler systems, that’s fine, its a noble profession but even using your provided numbers the cost/risk analysis would take over 100 years to break even. As far as being educated on sprinklers, I offer this experience, we have a sprinkler system in our shop, one day one of the sprinkler heads was simply bumped by an employee and it was enough to open the valve, about ten minutes later after we finally got the thing shut down we had about 4” of water over the entire floor soaking nearly everything in the warehouse from the ground up and also cost about $1200 to have one head replaced and the system recharged. that’s a mess and a cost that I do not want in my home. Its a great safety measure but its not cost effective and should not be mandated. Each and every year local fire departments donate/provide low income families with smoke detectors because they cant afford or refuse to purchase them, if this is implemented, are you going to personally donate sprinkler heads to needy families? Or would that not be cost effective for you?
Huffie,
The IRC “mandate” only pertains to new construction - it doesn’t require all homes to have sprinklers. Also, I’m not sure where you are getting your statistics, but in 2001 there were 396,500 fires in residences, not 6,000. That year over 3,000 people died in residential fires and 15,575 were injured. The direct dollar loss was over $5.5 billion. This just drives home my point that the public that is “overwhelmingly against” this hasn’t been given the real information.
Well Said HuffieVA. Throughout life we constantly have to make Risk/Benefit decisions. We could build cars that are survivable in all conditions below say 35 MPH. Of course that wouldn’t fit in with our need for better mileage because the cars would be so heavy. There are various tradeoffs involved all major decisions regarding safety.
This particular regulation for sprinkler systems doesn’t work well for rural homes or historic homes. This particular regulation involves a tremendous cost to a person’s home. Before the state makes a regulation that increases significantly the cost of home-ownership and maintenance, the homeowners have every right to weigh in.
Yes every life saved is a value to society but this fails the cost/benefit test and this is too costly of a regulation to not allow the homeowner to make the decision. If the cost/benefit is as you say, the insurance companies will reduce premiums by a significant amount, if you are right. In the states with this regulation, the insurance companies have not reduced insurance premiums to make this a good cost to benefit. What’s next, all houses in low-income areas need to have bullet proof walls and windows to protect people against stray bullets? It would save people from stray bullets?
lfd,
Its tough to swallow the 42K difference in damage cost as accurate, as this would include each and every activation of the system (malfunctions and small kitchen grease fires included) vs only real fires (excluding the small grease fires that do not go reported, damage there being a $35 extinguisher being refilled and some soap and water to pick up the dust) I’m not denying that they help in damage control. But the one time cost for the system does not include the demo of all the existing ceilings in an existing home and replacement of them, demo of walls to allow for piping and replacement of such, not to mention many older homes having low low ceilings, the cost of upgrading a well system in rural cases, and the list goes on. Therefore even if the 2k in damage is correct, you are still in the hole after spending 50K+ to basically gut and remodel your entire home if you do by slim chance have a fire…119,117,000 housing units in the United States in 2001 with an average of 6000 house fires in the country each year and the average damage is 45K per house and sprinklers eliminated all of that it would save enough money to sprinkle 54,000 (at $5000) houses at that rate it would only take 2205 years to break even, I don’t know about everyone else but I don’t have that much time left. It does not make sense
AG, I completely agree that extinguishers are effective against small fires. My concern is that fires grow very rapidly these days due to what we put in our homes and, they are not always where you need them. Please, if a fire starts in your home and you are not right there with an extinguisher handy when it happens, your best course of action is to exit immediately and call 911.
I also agree that smoke detectors are effective, but all they do is notify. They don’t ensure people can get out by controlling the growth or spread of a fire or protecting a means of egress. We can hope that notification is enough, but the statistics show that more can be done.
Residential dry suppression . . . sounds like a great business opportunity. Wish I was smart enough to cash in on that somehow.
I will reference again the real world results that are documented in the Scottsdale Report regarding damage. The huge difference between average repair costs of sprinklered ($2,166) and un-sprinklered ($45,019) should paint a pretty clear picture.
I would still argue the damage scenario with you:
A small fire could easily be put out with a dry extinguisher versus soaking the area with water (requiring new drywall, floor, subfloor, trim, paint, and mold remediation… not even including personal property). And, no life is in danger.
A large fire would certainly destroy more than the sprinklers but at that point, the value of remodeling is worth more than the value of rebuilding… let it burn! And, we count on the fire alarm getting everyone out safely.
From a builders view, some type of dry suppression would be a better option… but how do you configure that and who is going to pay that much?!
qhgirl,
Glad to hear you have extinguishers in addition to smoke detectors. Most people don’t. If you haven’t already, please make sure you know how to use it before you need to. Your local fire department may be able to assist.
A good blackened steak (or nice crispy bacon in my case) will not cause your sprinkler to activate. They only activate by heat, not by smoke. I can’t picture a steak cooked hot enough to cause the ceiling temperature to reach 155 degrees.
The primary purpose of residential sprinklers is to allow the occupant to escape the home. If no one is home for extended period of time during cold months, they could simply winterize their system as they would with their plumbing. There are also ways to winterize some systems with an anti-freeze solution.
The term mandate is unfortunate. This is new and of course there will be resistance, but virtually every code requirement is for the public’s safety, health and well-being. They were new at one point and probably faced resistance as well. What worries me is that people don’t ever think it will happen to them so they don’t think there is a risk. We’re forced to pay for insurance and may never need it. This is a one time cost, and with certain types of residential sprinkler systems there is no annual maintenance required. “Cost benefit” of saving lives . . . priceless in my opinion.
lfd..
As someone who has apperently inherited the ability to have my smoke alarm go off “every” time I blacken a steak in the kitchen.. what about the damage if it inadvertently goes off? If the smoke alarm goes off, it is annoying..if I am being sprayed by water.. it could cause damage.
I am not as concerned with the occupied homes.. but an unoccupied home in a northern climate could certainly sustain damage..even with insulated pipes.
I am not against a sprinkler system in theory.. but I hate to see mandates that increase the economic burden to people. We should have a choice.. if there is a great cost benefit.. we will do it.. if not.. well… I have smoke detectors and extinguishers.. although, I do admit they won’t help if I am not there to know about the problem.. risk I take I guess.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement