On Sunday, a 3:00 AM fire destroyed two homes and damaged two others in Nashville, Tennessee. The fire was pushed by high winds. The homes were built in 2006 by the Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity. No word yet on what caused the fire inside the house where it began. Click here to read more about the fire.
You may recall in September and October the parent organization, Habitat for Humanity International, took part in the effort to fight residential sprinklers. Habitat lobbied with the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) in what became an unsuccessful effort to defeat the sprinkler requirement as part of the 2009 Residential Code.
Click here to read the NAHB press release about Habitat’s position on sprinklers.
On October 1, CONTRACTORMag.com wrote about Habitat’s involvement in the sprinkler fight. The article pointed out that not all of its affiliates are in agreement on this issue. Here are excerpts from the story by Robert P. Mader:
“Our concerns center on the potential of pipes being susceptible to freezing in colder climates, damage from the accidental discharge of sprinklers and the availability of an adequate water supply in areas served by wells or where water is a scarce resource,” said Sandy Dunn, NAHB president and builder in Point Pleasant, W.Va. “Some homeowners may choose to have them installed anyway, but that’s where these systems should remain: as a choice, not a mandate.”
Elizabeth Blake, senior vice president of advocacy, government affairs and legal with Habitat for Humanity said, “Our affiliates build all across the country and around the world. Mandating fire sprinklers fails to recognize their varying needs, and runs the risk of requiring something that may be impractical for some of our partner families.”
“Habitat’s mission is to provide simple, decent and affordable shelter for families,” said Blake. “Each home we don’t build due to an added and unjustified regulatory requirement such as this can leave yet another family in substandard housing.”
Nevertheless, Habitat affiliates in North Carolina have been building houses with fire sprinklers for a number of years. Habitat board member John Sehon said the Chapel Hill affiliate has been including fire sprinklers for the past four years. It was an idea brought to them by the Pinehurst, N.C., affiliate that taught them how to do it.
Chapel Hill Habitat Construction Director Tyler Momsen-Hudson said all of the pipe and sprinklers are donated and they are installed by firefighters and other volunteers. He said another builder estimated the fair market value at around $3,000, but he said he would not build a house without fire sprinklers, even if they had to pay for them.
Momsen-Hudson said sprinklers have saved one of their Habitat houses. The family spent just one night in a hotel and returned to their home the next day.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
Residential house fire deaths are rare – 2750 a year. Compare this to other preventable causes of death (assuming that if you live long enough, you'll die of heart disease or cancer): Chronic Lower Respiratory Distress: 122,000; Diabetes 69,000; Flu & Pneumonia 65,000; Alzheimers 50,000; Motor Vehicle Accidents 43,354; Kidney Failure 36,000; Septicemia 31,224; Firearms 29,000; Falls 13,000; Poisioning 13,000; Drowning 3,842; Medical/Surgical complications 3,000. (The fire sprinkler people like to include total deaths to fire to bolster their case, but 15-20% of fire deaths occur in vehicle accidents. You don't hear the sprinkler industry clamoring for onboard fire suppression systems in new cars, though do you?)
Residential sprinkler systems save lives, but not generally property. In fact, they typically cost more to install & maintain than they save – strictly because residential fires are so rare. I don't believe that insurance companies give you much of a break, if any, for having a sprinkler system. How many lives sprinkler systems save is reduced even further when compared to new houses, and not just the total stock of new houses.
There are alternatives that would cost less, and save more lives, such as self-closing fire rated internal doors, and 10 year – battery smoke detectors, but since these alternatives do not benefit the sprinkler industry….
Needless to say, the fire sprinkler people haven't been able to convince home buyers that residential sprinklers are worth the money. And they're probably not, in residential buildings below 11 storeys, according to the UK's office of the Deputy Prime Minister: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143426.pdf
So, instead, they pack the house at the residential building code conference, and push their agenda, which has the force of law in many jurisdictions.
Shame on them. Habitat for humanity raises a good point. The additional cost of sprinklers means that some houses would not be built. Somewhere at the margin, there's a family living in an unsprinklered, 40 year-old apartment building, at a much higher risk of fire death, rather than living in a new construction unsprinklered house. In fact, there isn't just one family, there are thousands. 5-10% on the cost of a new home, over millions of homes, is a significant cost.
Sean Brooks:
We agree on one thing – "Residential sprinkler systems save lives".
It is not just the sprinkler industry pushing this…it is the fire service and fire protection professionals everywhere…e.g. Fresno, CA –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqIE5lnsGrw
The people that I know that traveled to vote were fire officials who have no ties to the sprinkler industry…they simply agree with you and me – "Residential sprinkler systems save lives".
Your statement regarding sprinkler systems not saving property is just not true. Statistics are clear that there is a substantial average savings. Please cite a study that disagrees (your link is dead or is just not coming through on the post, btw)
Your 5-10% figure (I assume you are referring to an average number) is incorrect also. Granted, there are jurisdictions (I call them water Nazis) that want to charge impact fees/connection fees/etc that may drive the cost up to these figures AND there DOES exist a rural water supply issue. Many jurisdictions have tackled these problems and others can (if they would take the time) learn from them. However, the average, as cited by many studies, is below 5%. There are many jurisdictions that have trade-offs, which lower overall construction costs…which I am sure you are not including.
Note: I do not (and never have) have no ties to residential sprinkler sales…I have simply seen first hand (both the positives and negatives) and know that "Residential sprinkler systems save lives" – as well as property. That is enough for me.
But don't take my word on it…look at the Scottsdale, Arizona report…afterall, who knows more about this…you, me or a jurisdiction that actually DID it and experienced it?
From the 15 year report – "The average loss for a fire incident in a building protected with an automatic
sprinkler system was over 90% less than the average loss for a structure fire incident without
automatic sprinkler protection. One or two sprinkler heads controlled or extinguished the fire in
92% of the incidents. This statistic proves that a small amount of water applied early during a
fire incident is more effective than the much larger amounts that are typically flowed by
firefighters. The installation impact and direct costs of the system are no longer major
obstructions to acquiring this built-in protection. In residential properties, several design and
technical improvements have allowed the installation cost to average between $0.55 and $0.75
per square foot for typical homes. This is usually less than 1% of the total cost of a new home
and has not caused a negative impact on the development or construction of new homes in the
community."
Mr. Anonymous
Sprinklers save lives, we agree, but at what cost. The best person to determine whether or not this cost is justified is the home buyer, not a bunch of fire officials on a sprinkler company junket.
Wearing a bulletproof vest would save lives. So would a midnight road curfew, or a 50 mph national speed limit, or outlawing cars without airbags, abs, and stability control. Working on potentially 40,000 deaths a year, these measures would certainly save more lives than sprinkler laws, but we as a nation, and as states, don't think they're worth it. So the fact that "Sprinklers Save Lives" is not sufficient to justify a building code amendment. The costs have to be weighed against the benefits.
I stand corrected, apparently most insurance companies offer a slight discount for residential fire sprinklers: http://www.nahb.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=82243 on average, this savings is about $95 a year.
From the same article, the cost of sprinklers, as seen by the customer, is about $7,000, which causes an additional, annual cost, of about $500. So, the net *financial* COST of sprinklers is about $400 a year, plus maintenance. It's hard to apply the financial value of a life, but some numbers may help to put it in perspective: there are 2750 residential fire deaths per year in a country with 305,000,000 people. So, for $400 a year, you could *almost* guarantee that a one-in-100,000 event wouldn't happen. Of course, if you keep a nice, clean, home; check your smoke detectors; practice home fire safety; don't live alone; don't live far away from a fire station, and aren't an alcoholic, the chance of dying in a fire (sprinklered or not) are more like one-in-a-milllion. Of course, for $400 a year, maybe some of these people would better benefit by going to the Doctor, or filling some prescriptions, or buying a new set of brakes or tires – but the sprinkler industry (and some willing fire officials) wants to take that value judgement out of the hands of those individuals, and decree that they must spend their money with them.
Scottsdale? Who cares. Let's see an apples to apples comparison. All these sprinkler statisticians love to compare the before & after of a sprinkler law. So you wind up comparing all the old-stock houses to all of the new-stock houses that benefit from *all* of the new technology, plus sprinklers, PLUS BEING NEW, and being new, generally are not filled with poor people. Like it or not, fires happen in poor neighborhoods far more often than they do in well-off neighborhoods. Lets see a comparison of like-vintage houses, in similar areas, and see what the benefits are. THEY ARE TINY.
Hasn't caused a negative impact on development? In scottsdale? In the one of the most rapidly growing areas of the country? How could you tell? Do you even know what the word "margin" means? There are people out there that are on the bubble – who can *almost* afford to move out of the 1960's apartment they live in, but can't. In a country of 300 million, there are a lot of people on the bubble. Adding to the cost of a home, even if it isn't very much, keep people in fire-unsafe housing, when you multiply "not very much" by 305,000,000.
Full link to the UK report, from my OP: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/143426.pdf
Mr. Brooks
Hope the lay-offs at NAHB don't affest you and your friends. If you'd like real verifiable information come to Prince Georges County, Md where we have had residential sprinklers since the late 80's. Was there a learning curve for the best way to do it ? Certainly, but we've been doing it long enough that the industry has adopted this as a standard cost. Do we save lives? You bet, real people who we can take you to and you can shake hands with. Have we saved property? A ton of it, million and millions of dollars worth. These are real homes that suffered some smoke and water damage but were saved by the sprinkler system. You can go and walk through them right now or any other time you wish to stop by.
I was looking forward to hearing about your alternatives but you quickly bailed out of that arguement because you knew that you had no alternatives to offer.
I'd love to hear your comments on lightweight wood truss construction. I'm sure its much more efficient in your eyes than those heavy old wooden beams builders used to use,but did you know how quickly they can collapse when exposed to heat and flame?While your taking your tour of Gorgeous (Sprinklered)Prince Georges,take the time to drive an hour north to Emmittsburg, Md and tour the National Fallen Firefighter Memorial. I'm sure the staff there would be happy to let you do a rubbing of the names on the wall who fell into a fiery hell when the lightweight trusses failed. I should point out that you won't find the names of any Firefighters who died in operating fully sprinklered homes. Best Wishes for a happy New Years
Mr. Anonymous
Hah! I live in Prince George's County. How many fatalities does PG county have in a year?
Who can I contact here to ask the question: what is the likelihood of dying in a non-sprinklered home built in 2005 vs. living in a sprinklered home built in 2005?
Are you counting every person who survives a sprinklered house fire as a sprinkler "save"? Then you are assuming that the person would have died without the sprinkler, which is clearly not always the case. Logic like yours is the root of the very lightweight trusses you decry.
I personally would rather live in a dimensional lumber framed house (or better, a concrete or masonry house) sans sprinkler than live in a lightweight, sprinklered house.
I'll note that every Forest Products Engineer I've spoken with, regarding lightweight trusses, recommends sprinkler use. Why bother with good construction if there's a sprinkler system working? For that matter, why bother with a public fire department?
Here in Texas we have some monster homes in areas of the state with understaffed paid and volunteer departments. We build them big, and we build them close on the lot lines. In these homes the bedrooms are usually upstairs, and there is often a kids' room on the 3rd floor. I am darn sure I want that home to have sprinklers. I enjoy eating my barbecue (brisket, not you yankees grilling burgers, dogs, crabs, cats, or whatever it is you cook), so anything that keeps the smell of burned flesh out of my nostrils is a good thing.
I seem to recall that about three years ago 4 mega-homes in a development in Georgia went up. The department was hampered by water supply issues. I seem to recall a similar issue being discussed on this site a few weeks ago that took place on an isthmus in Maryland.
As budgets are slashed and the numbers of volunteers decline in the USA, it seems to me the value of 12-15 gallons a minute becomes a lot more valuable.
I know how to call 911, and anyone breaking into my home will be on the unfortunate end of incoming rounds, and many of my neighbors here in Texas take a similar stance, and yet they subscribe to a commercial alarm system. I can handle an intruder, I'd prefer to have some back up from a sprinkler as I struggle to deploy the 1/4" green line from the backyard.
I agree with Phil:
'When we think about fire deaths, we think about the MGM Grand fire [in Las Vegas, Nev.] or the Happy Land fire in New York, and we don't realize that the vast majority of people in this country die in one's and two's in their own homes,'' said Philip Schaenman, president of Tridata Corporation of Arlington, Va., a fire-safety consulting firm. ''So homes are the logical next application for sprinklers. Some people may think sprinklers are out of place in a house, but there was a time when people couldn't imagine having a toilet indoors either.'