BY RICHARD A. MARINUCCI
The number of deaths and injuries and the loss of money attributed to fire in the United States remain high. The vast majority of these losses have been recorded in residential homes, causing the United States to rank in the top five for residential fire losses among the industrialized nations in the world. Although technology exists to significantly reduce these fire-related losses, namely automatic fire sprinklers and automatic fire alarms, the use of this technology has met with resistance.
Automatic sprinklers have proven reliable and effective since they were first used in the late 19th century. The efforts some fire service professionals from across the country have been making to have sprinklers incorporated into residential construction have met with opposition, mainly from home builders. They cite reasons such as the high cost of sprinklers and the potential for water damage from system malfunctions. The home builders industry has engaged in politics to affect policy decisions regarding mandates relative to built-in fire protection.
There has been other opposition as well, although maybe not as obvious. Each year, more than 3,000 people in the United States die in residential fires, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the United States Fire Administration.1 This loss is significant when compared to many other causes of deaths in areas that are more closely regulated by our government, such as the airline industry.
Fire loss statistics have remained relatively constant during the past 30 years despite the fact that studies have suggested that sprinklers could reduce the number of fire fatalities by as much as 80 percent.2 In our country, which routinely regulates industries in the interest of public safety, a reasonable question would be, “Why are new homes in the United States not required to install automatic fire sprinklers or automatic fire alarms?”
Installing automatic sprinklers in residential structures was first considered in 1973, when the NFPA established a committee to develop a code related to sprinklers. Sprinklers had been used in commercial properties for a long time, but the lack of a standard or code for residential buildings indicated that installation was not even a consideration for single-family dwellings.3
RESIDENTIAL vs. NONRESIDENTIAL FIRES
The fire service in general has an outstanding track record regarding fire prevention in structures other than residential, primarily because of strong code enforcement, technological advances, and the fact that fire departments have the authority to impose regulations on commercial properties. This authority is much more restricted with regard to residential structures. You could speculate that society has chosen to leave people alone, within reason, when they are at home while increasing regulations for public areas to protect the masses.
Many of the improvements in fire safety in commercial and industrial properties have resulted from disastrous fires. For example, regulations for public assembly occupancies were implemented as a result of the Coconut Grove fire in Boston in 1942 and the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire in Kentucky in 1977.4 Not only were codes made more stringent, but the attention given to similar structures by fire prevention bureaus around the country fostered new approaches to preventing similar fires, including requiring automatic fire sprinkler systems in these and similar occupancies.
Contrast the reaction to a large fire loss in a commercial or an industrial property with that to a fire loss in a residential structure. Although there obviously is normal grieving by those affected by the residential fire, most of society doesn’t even take notice of the loss of a life in a single-family dwelling. Large fires get people’s attention, and they then demand that something be done to prevent future occurrences.
Fire service professionals know the solution, which almost always includes the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, and society acts on the recommendations. This type of reaction rarely occurs when “only” one or two people die in a residential fire, except for those directly involved, including the responding firefighters. This may suggest that these events are not newsworthy enough to promote action.
Why is this so? One reason may be that our society considers “a man’s home his castle” and believes that government should have only minimal regulatory power in that area. What people do in the privacy of their homes is their business and generally does not affect anyone else. As evidence, we could look at the building and fire codes. There are clearly more mandates and requirements on structures used for public purposes.5
In addition, some believe that people who die in fires do not have the necessary advocates in government to take action. Certain elements of society do not have equal representation within that society. As a result, they do not generate the political support that would mandate action. These groups include the young, the old, and the poor, who happen to be the populations that include the majority of fire deaths.6 Without sustained outrage, most of society is hesitant to take action.
SUCCESS OF SPRINKLERS
In Prince George’s County, Maryland, in 1987, the County passed an ordinance that phased in the use of residential sprinklers. By 1992, it was mandated that all residential structures comply. The fire chief at the time, Ron Siarnicki, was instrumental in making the changes, but he admits that it was not easy. He credits an “all hands” approach, timing, and a little bit of luck. The results are outstanding. In 1999, 12 years after the initial ordinance was passed, a study showed that 154 lives were saved by the activation of sprinkler systems.7
In San Clemente, California, in 1984, Chief Ron Coleman, concerned that the city was growing so fast—the population grew from 18,000 to 65,000 in eight years—that there was no way for the community to keep up with its fire protection, mandated sprinklers in residential structures. The primary motivation for the legislation was to transfer some of the cost of fire protection to the developers and reduce the impact of fire on the community. The community experienced no loss of human life or significant fire loss in the eight-year period from 1984 to 1992.8 Most members of the fire service can cite some type of anecdotal evidence that illustrates that sprinkler technology works. The question remains: Why aren’t sprinklers being embraced as a solution to a problem that continues to kill more than 3,000 people in the United States every year?
PUBLIC EDUCATION
Following are some impressions, rebuttals to the impressions, and life safety information you can use to educate homeowners on this issue.
Water Damage. A sprinkler works when heat from a fire activates a sprinkler head, which serves as a nozzle to discharge water onto the fire. Only those heads in close proximity to the fire open, usually just one—rarely more than two. The water is released at between 10 and 20 gallons per minute (gpm). This is significantly less than fire hose, which discharges 100 to 200 gpm. The water damage from a sprinkler head is significantly less than if the fire were to continue growing until the fire department arrives. Even more important, the quick control of the fire greatly minimizes the threat to the safety of any occupants.
Broken Water Pipes. This issue is much more about perception than reality. The water pipes used are the same as those used for plumbing that delivers the domestic water supply to the house. The chance of sprinkler pipes failing is the same as that for other pipes in the house. Even the threat of freezing in colder climates is the same. If the system is properly installed, the risks are minimal.
Delay in Response. When there is no automatic fire protection, human intervention is needed to notify the fire department, delaying the fire department’s arrival. Although we now have enhanced 911 systems, more universal use of cell phones, computer-aided dispatch, and better trained firefighters, fire loss statistics have remained relatively stable. Fire death rates per 1,000 fires from 1977 to 2009 have remained relatively stable even though the number of fires was significantly reduced.9
Sprinklers Save Lives. Automatic sprinklers can greatly reduce the risk of a catastrophic fire. There has been no major loss of life from fires in facilities or homes when automatic sprinklers were operating properly. The annual NFPA report on large-loss fires in 2009 supports this statement.10
VARIED FIRE SERVICE SUPPORT
Some of the challenges to establishing a requirement for installing automatic fire sprinklers in all residential structures may reside with the members of the fire service. Although it is primarily the fire service that presses this issue, it is not universally so. Fire prevention officers, fire marshals, and fire chiefs appear to be the most passionate about the need for sprinklers. Those in fire suppression—line firefighters and officers—generally are silent on the issue. One might speculate that the use of this technology could potentially make firefighters obsolete. They generally do not promote sprinklers enthusiastically. Since suppression personnel outnumber fire chiefs, fire marshals, and other fire prevention staff, they may carry more sway.
The fire service in general doesn’t always practice what it preaches. In this case, very few in the fire service, regardless of their position, demand built-in fire protection in their own homes. If their actions do not match their words, others might not be so easy to convince.
Arguably, as previously noted, the greatest resistance to residential sprinklers has come from the home builders group. Although the most recent editions of the 2009 International Building Code and the 2009 International Fire Code require automatic sprinklers in residential structures, the home builders have successfully lobbied various states to remove this requirement when adopting the 2009 edition of the International Fire Code. The stated reason is that the additional cost will make the sale of homes more difficult. At an estimated $1.60 per square foot to install, it would cost less than $5,000 for this life safety system in a typical 3,000-square-foot home. (2) Over the course of a 30-year mortgage, the addition to the payments would be minor and cost less than many of the other options people select.
Scientific and anecdotal evidence indicates that the loss of life from fires in residential structures can be greatly reduced through the use of automatic fire sprinklers. Since there is a relatively low cost with a high benefit, one could reasonably conclude that there are other reasons for not using this technology. Those reasons must be directly addressed if change is to occur, or the fire loss record will remain unchanged.
References
1.Karter, Jr., Michael J. “U.S. Fire Loss for 2009.” NFPA 104.5 (2010): 58. Print.
2. Fukutomi, Bryant. “Fire Chiefs Want Sprinklers in All New Single-family Homes.” Hawaii News, Honolulu, Honolulu News, Sports, Editorial, Features, Travel and Business – Honolulu Star-Advertiser – Hawaii Newspaper. 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 7 Mar. 2011. http://www.staradvertiser.com/;.
3. Hodnett, Robert M. Automatic Sprinkler Systems Handbook. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1985. Print.
4. Barr, Robert C. and John M. Eversole. Chapter 25, “Fire Prevention and Code Enforcement Organization.” The Fire Chief’s Handbook. Tulsa, OK: PennWell, 2003, 1041. Print.
5. International Fire Code. International Code Council. 2009. Web.
6. Sternberg, Steve. Report: “Half of Children Killed in Fires Are under Age 5.” USAToday. 15 Feb. 2011. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2011. http://www.usatoday.com;.
7. Interview. 1 Mar. 2011.
8. Interview. 28 Feb. 2011.
9. Karter, Jr., Michael J. “U.S. Fire Loss for 2009.” NFPA 104.5 (2010): 59. Print.
10. Bader, Stephen G. “U.S. Large-Loss Fires in 2009.” NFPA 104.6 (2010):62-69. Print.
Additional References
Barcousky, Len. “New State Sprinkler Law: Shower of Safety or Just All Wet?”Post-Gazette.com. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10 Feb. 2011. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2011. http://www.post-gazette.com;.
Compton, Dennis, and John Granito. Managing Fire and Rescue Services. International City/County Management, 2002. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. http://www.amazon.com/Managing-Rescue-Services-Municipal-Management/dp/0873261283;.
Johnson, Brian. “A Pointed Debate on Mandatory Fire Sprinklers.” Finance & Commerce. 11 Feb. 2011. Web. 15 Feb. 2011.
Karter, Jr., Michael J. “U.S. Fire Loss for 2008.” NFPA. Sept.-Oct. 2009. Web. 7 Oct. 2009. http://www.nfpa.org/;.
Llorens, Adam. “Fire Dept. Installs New Alarms.” The Observer. 9 Feb. 2011. Web. Feb.-Mar. 2011. http://www.ndsmcobserver.com/;.
Restaino, Peter. “Builders Group Seeks Revision of Sprinkler Mandate.” Wilkes-Barre Times Leader – News, Sports, Obituaries and Classifieds for Wilkes-Barre and Scranton/The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre & Scranton PA. 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Mar. 2011. http://www.timesleader.com/;.
Seder, Andrew M. “Repeal of Home Sprinkler Mandate Advances.” Wilkes-Barre Times Leader – News, Sports, Obituaries and Classifieds for Wilkes-Barre and Scranton/The Times Leader, Wilkes-Barre & Scranton PA. 7 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 Mar. 2011. http://www.timesleader.com/;.
“Sprinkler Law Repealed.” PhillyBurbs.com. 10 Mar. 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2011. http://www.phillyburbs.com/;.
Wyatt, D. “Fire Sprinklers in Homes & Former Fire Chief Rule.” Manteca Bulletin. 1 Feb. 2011. Web. Jan.-Feb. 2011. http://www.mantecabulletin.com/;.
RICHARD MARINUCCI has been chief in Northville Township, Michigan, since January 2009. Previously, he was chief in Farmington Hills (1984–2008), president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and chief operating officer of the U.S. Fire Administration. He has bachelor degrees from Western Michigan University, Madonna University, and the University of Cincinnati. He teaches for EMU and MFRI.
<Previous Displaying 4/4 Page 1, 2, 3, 4
View Article as Single page
