|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:54 pm Post subject: Home Fire Sprinkler Systems added to national building codes |
    |
|
I'm just going to copy some of my posts from another forum:
Here is a good article as far as insurance rates go:
http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=82243
We as a nation spend tons of money on luxury. We could certainly spend all that money on safety and decrease the death rate dramatically. If the money spent on the Disney concert hall alone had been spent on adding sprinklers to older homes and apartment buildings in the area lives and property could have probably been saved.
here is another good link:
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/citizens/all_citizens/home_fire_prev/sprinklers/
Like I said at the beginning an ounce of prevention is often worth a pound of cure. I would like to see that the people most at risk are helped first. I have nothing against social systems as long as they are run efficiently and democratically.
For my own part I don't consider it a good investment. But if the government wanted to tax me another $20 per month to install sprinkler systems in places where the are needed most that would be alright with me. I am not a fan of trickle down economics.
here is a related report:
| Quote: |
Scottsdale Report 15 Year Data Now Available
In Scottsdale, Arizona, a sprinkler ordinance was implemented on January 1, 1986. Ten years after the ordinance was passed, the Rural/Metro Fire Department published the Scottsdale Report. The study has now been updated to include 5 additional years of data.
41,408 homes, more than 50 percent of the homes in Scottsdale, are protected with fire sprinkler systems.
Download a PowerPoint presentation with highlights of the 15 year data.
Lives Saved
in the 15 years there were 598 home fires. Of the 598 homefires, 49 were in single-family homes with fire sprinkler systems:
• There were no deaths in sprinklered homes.
• 13 people died in homes without sprinklers.
• The lives of 13 people who would have likely died without sprinklers, were saved |
Over a 15 year period 49 of these new sprinkled homes had a fire. That means 549 where in older homes.
Which group needs to be protected the most new homes or old homes?
How long will it take before these 549 homes are actually protected by installing sprinklers in new homes and thus actually saving these 13 lives?
So this is my point. If our goal is to save lives and property it makes most since to install sprinklers in older houses first. That is where 92% of fires occur. We have no evidence that these sprinklers installed in new homes will still be functional by the time a house ages to this high risk category.
To me this is basic common since. But I think that if I suggest we raise taxes so that we can install sprinkler systems in older houses this will not be nearly as popular as this current code requirement.
Also from the same report:
| Quote: | Less Fire Damage
There was less damage in the homes with sprinklers*:
• Average fire loss per sprinklered incident: $2,166.
• Average fire loss per unsprinklered incident: $45,019.
• Annual fire losses in Scottsdale (2000-2001) were $3,021,225 compared to the national average of $9,144,442. |
Say it cost an average of $3500 per house for sprinklers
x (sprinkled houses) 41,408 = $144, 928, 000 (almost 145 million) divided by the number of fires 49 = $2.9 million which is what it actually cost to sprinkle each one of those 49 fires. Which only actually saved an average of 32% of the repair costs over non sprinkled homes (plus potentially saving one life).
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1349
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Have you seen statistics on the relative fire safety of newer and older homes, when both types are unsprinklered?
One would certainly like to guess that newer homes are safer... I wonder what kind of data gives a solid foundation for the thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, but I would have to guess with smoke alarm and egress requirements that they are a bit safer.
It seems like we could further improve safety much more efficiently by preventing fires in the first place. Why are we still getting toasters recalled for being a fire hazard? It seems like we should know how to make a safe toaster.
Perhaps requiring fire extinguishers would also be effective at a fraction of the cost of sprinklers.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kevin
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Apr 2004
Posts: 1349
Location: Eugene, Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We could just cut to the chase...
Fire extinguishers in toasters!
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Chris - Excellent Topic......
I don't think anyone would argue that saving lives is not important...... any death in a residential firs is tragic........HOWEVER -
I am against requiring the installation of fire sprinklers systems in single family residences. If anyone really thinks the added cost to new construction will be around $3,000 as stated by the articles, you are fooling yourself. I think the current costs are based on a supply and demand..... very little demand means low costs. The minute this becomes mandatory - the price will skyrocket. Guaranteed. There are very few licensed sprinkler contractors compared to the other trades. And when push comes to shove - their lobby will push that only they can design and install the systems (which is the case in commercial construction)
This whole subject has been driven by fire marshals all across the country. I have argued with many of them locally. It has been my experience that many of them try to enforce codes that have not been approved or accepted. Every year - fire guys have tried to get this inserted into the residential code and every year - homebuilders -NOT ARCHITECTS - have fought this off. And with good reason. I am sure there are more aggressive articles to be found than the one Chris linked against fire sprinklers.
Insurance..... I have personally discussed this with several insurance carriers and the discount does not offset the cost. In commercial construction the savings in based on being able to construct larger buildings and the reduction of fire construction.
If you want to make a condemning comment on the architectural profession - it can be in the area of Building Code development. Architects go around beating their chests that they are the authority on building safe and the codes. YET - I have yet to see the AIA or any individual architect make recommendations or take a position during the annual code reviews.
I already specify limited area sprinkler heads in mechanical closets (furnace rooms - water closet areas) of the houses we design. Its a single head off of the domestic service. Cost is probably $500-$750 per head.
Do you really want to see sprinkler heads hanging from your living room and bedroom ceilings?
All of that being said - if this gets passed or accepted at the state levels - which would greatly surprise me - I think there has to be a means to trade-off. From personal experience - I have seen fire construction be very effective.
In commercial construction there are trade-offs for installing fire sprinklers. It seems to follow that we should have the same in residential construction.
Why not push for 20 minute doors on bedrooms and furnace rooms? Why not push for smoke alarms in concealed spaces such as crawlspaces and attics? Why not push for Type X gypsum board? - BTW - 1/2" gypsum board on both sides of a 2 x 4 wall has a 45 minute to 1 hour rating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the intention behind this is good.
Unfortunately (according to the Scottsdale report) this will not help the people who need help most.
Spending an average of 2.9 million per sprinkled fire in new homes is not fiscally responsible. Particularly with poor evidence that any lives would have been lost.
On the other hand if Scottsdale would have installed them in the 41,000 older homes instead, 13 lives would have been saved and the cost per sprinkled fire would have been $261,384.00 and it would also have reduced the workload and risk to firefighters substantially.
I think you bring up a good point that we should continue to work on the fire safety of new homes in other ways.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cousinbirgco
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 149
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 4:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi guys, thought you might like to know in my ny suburb,
fire sprinklers have been mandatory for past 15 years or so,
(except for modular construction). Just got an estimate for
the 8 room 3000 sq. ft. house I'm (still) building, $7900 
I agree with the points made that there are other ways to make
a home safer. It's also a question of fairness as to why only
new houses should be required to install them when older homes
are far more likely to have a fire due to faulty wiring, chimneys or heating equipment.
Of course proponents will say we have to start somewhere but it
may be 200 years before a majority of homes would have
sprinklers and as previously mentioned at what cost.
40 plus thousand people are killed every year in auto accidents
yet we don't install mandatory speed devices on all the cars
produced each year.
It's time for some common sense especially when it
begs the question of building more affordable housing
when it's so badly needed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was being extremely generous in my estimates and figuring the cost at an average of 3500 dollars and an average area of 2000 sq. ft.
Another thing to keep in mind is that according to a government study sprinklers only reduce fire damage buy an average of something like 32%
So not only are we spending $2.9 million or more per fire but for that cost we are only saving about 10% on insurance and about 33% on damage costs. (I can see why the insurance companies like it)
It is this kind of well intentioned (but poorly thought out) regulation that has gotten this country to our current 10 trillion dollar deficit.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cousinbirgco wrote: |
It's time for some common sense especially when it
begs the question of building more affordable housing
when it's so badly needed. |
That's a real issue. It's bad enough the low and moderate income market is basically ignored by the developer and builders, but then to tack on additional costs will ensure people don't entire that market segment.
I am wondering if the downturn in the housing market has allowed the fire guys to finally get their agenda pushed through the model codes. Locally - the HBA is down to about 50% of its membership from a few years ago. I would have to imagine even the heavy hitters such as Ryan, Pulte, and so on are focused elsewhere with 10-12 months backlog of product sitting idle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
For me the issue would be spending money where it counts. In this case we would be better off mandating greater efficiency standards. If we are truly going to become energy independent we must slash our usage starting now.
Recent events clearly demonstrate that reducing oil consumption will reduce it's cost per barrel dramatically.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | For me the issue would be spending money where it counts. In this case we would be better off mandating greater efficiency standards. If we are truly going to become energy independent we must slash our usage starting now.
Recent events clearly demonstrate that reducing oil consumption will reduce it's cost per barrel dramatically. |
That argument - which I agree with - does not address the issue at hand.
One is life/fire safety, the other is an environmental issue.... and if you agree with Thomas Friedman and T. Boone Pickens, an issue of national security. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I was not aware that the discussion needed to be so narrow. I thought I was following the trend set in the last few posts talking about the economic effects of this mandate. My intention for this thread was to discuss this code and it's effects on housing and not strictly home fire safety.
I don't know how much else we can say about improving fire safety that we have not already mentioned. I think the home building industry needs continuous research toward improving home safety. We need to base our codes on solid research and cost effective solutions and not pie in the sky.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phansford
Joined: 18 Apr 2004
Posts: 832
Location: SW Ohio
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| csintexas wrote: | | Sorry, I was not aware that the discussion needed to be so narrow. I thought I was following the trend set in the last few posts talking about the economic effects of this mandate. My intention for this thread was to discuss this code and it's effects on housing and not strictly home fire safety. |
Ummm.....yeah...... don't know what to say there.....
My point is that one issue is life/fire safety and is being driven by people who could give a rat's end about energy. The other issue is more about energy consumption, potential life cycle saving, and so on. And that lobby group could care less about life/fire safety.
Neither cares what the other lobby group is doing and in fact would support each others agenda to get their own passed. Without the HBA lobby to protect the builder (and to a certain extent the consumer) - the fire and energy lobby are able to go wacko with their proposals.
Remember - the recent update in the model energy code was revoked by some states after designers and builders tried using it..... I know from a recent project that I could not meet the new standard.... EVEN THOUGH I had insulation values far exceeding code requirements and Energystar and windows.... What the H-E-DOUBLE HOCKEY STICKS is that all about. 
If the energy lobby had its way..... we would live in window-less houses. And if the fire lobby had its way.... we would all live in swimming pools or concrete bunkers with no furnishings 
BTW - Check this out .... what are your thoughts. I would have to assume in Texas solar and wind could be adapted for single-families. In Ohio.... due to the limited number of sun days.... solar is really only reliable for heating water. Otherwise the cost gets out of hand. I am wondering what a small wind mill could do .... such as those used for years by local farms to pump water. Of course - all of this becomes next to impossible in a suburban setting where density blocks ground wind and you need to get some real height. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
csintexas
millennium club
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 2174
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
I must have misunderstood your previous post.
These are the problems we get with our current lobby system. Instead of looking at the merits of any proposal we have groups who are biased to their own ideas and they end up making deals with other groups who are bias to their own ideas. Meanwhile the government in charge wants to appear active and progressive.
In this case all we have to do is look at Scottsdale which actually implemented this idea to see that the return on investment is extremely poor. If it is truly our intention to save lives we would need to install them in older houses first.
We did not have that energy code problem here so I am not familiar with it.
I think that if we can use the building to funnel wind (similar to the dog trot concept) and increase the efficiency of wind turbines that would be a good idea. My particular location is not a high wind area. As far as solar electric goes, I think that large scale solar thermal is going to be more efficient than personal PV.
My mother-in-law grew up on a farm in South Dakota they had a windmill that supplied power to a radio and three light bulbs 70 years ago.
_________________
-Chris Stewart
http://bcshdb.blogspot.com >
The B/CS Home Design Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scottr303
Joined: 20 Sep 2008
Posts: 5
Location: Garland, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 6:48 pm Post subject: The 95% Rule |
|
|
I have observed Government regulation over the years and have developed what I call the 95% rule. And it applies to this issue.
95% of the problem (fire deaths) can be addressed by properly working fire detectors and proper working egress. - (Windows that open and no bars). This costs maybe a couple hundred dollars per house and can be easily retrofited to older homes.
To get another 4% (there is no perfection) Government wants people to spend. 20 times as much. $3,500+. Not very efficent.
AND THEN THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT AFFORABLE HOUSING......
Wouldn't the difference be better spent addressing 95% of other issues?
Some other observation on the issue.
*This is driven by Fire Marshals and the Sprinkler Industry.
*Now with mass demand and mass production what will happen to quality of materials and installation?
*What is the long term reliability with no accidental discharges.
*Sprinklers require mantenance -- we can not even get people to maintain smoke detectors.
*What prevents an owner from turning it off.
*What about areas with low preasure or well water. Storage tanks and pumps?
*How long is builder liability?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
blogger
del.icio.us
digg
slashdot
