When a fire chief proposes a residential fire sprinkler ordinance, he or she will often
receive a letter from a local builder with list of reasons why the ordinance is a bad idea.
The reasons are supported by "facts" collected from other home builders and their professional
associations. The statements in the letter may seem plausible to people who are unfamiliar
with fire sprinklers and home construction. The facts, however, prove all of the statements
wrong. Each of the following statements from home builders is followed by a discussion of the
facts.
For further discussion contact RFSI Director, Roy L. Marshall at rfsirlm@myfmtc.com or 712/829-2734.
Current fire losses do not warrant fire sprinklers.
Home builders will often cite the "low" number of house fires or fire deaths in the jurisdiction,
implying that current fire losses do not warrant sprinklers. This argument has no basis if the fire
chief is proposing the ordinance in anticipation of new growth, which is often the case. Thus, the
fire chief wants to use sprinklers to manage future fire risk, not today’s. It should be obvious to
anyone that as more dwelling units are built, it will increase the rate of fire and EMS calls and add
to the fire department’s workload.
Even a fairly small increase in fire and EMS calls can strain fire department services. As the fire
department’s daily reports show, the daily workload is not evenly distributed. Fire and EMS calls are
related to human activity. When people are awake and on the move, the higher activity level will yield
peak hours for fire and EMS calls. When more development is added, the additional calls will increase
the occurrence of multiple calls coming in at the same time. This increases the likelihood that firefighters
will not be available when a working fire occurs, and the impact is higher on fire departments that are
already short-staffed or depend upon volunteer staff. This is certainly a concern to which any responsible
fire chief will respond.
When increasing run loads strain fire department resources, the life risk to the occupants and responding
firefighters is higher. It is prudent for fire departments to look for cost-effective ways to mitigate the impact
of dwelling fires on the residents who will suffer them and the firefighters who will respond, not to mention the
taxpayers who will bear the costs of additional fire department resources.
But the current level of fire calls should not be overlooked. Regardless of the home builders assertion about
the frequency of dwelling fires, the current rate of fire and EMS calls shows relative to the fire department
resources usually show that dwelling fires are a reasonably expected risk. Whether a serious fire occurs once
a year or once a month, it a high consequence event. With sprinklers, fire deaths can be prevented when the fires
occur.
By building the fire protection into the new homes, fire chiefs will save lives and reduce the long-term
impact on the fire department and taxpayers. Home builders focus on building homes and moving on. They are not
concerned about the long-term consequences to the community.
In addition to the increased number of homes, the new development’s street layout is an important consideration. One
layout that is gaining popularity is the "village" concept that clusters the new homes closer to each other and
restricts travel routes into the development. These two factors increase the risk to the new residents and firefighters
for the following reasons. The closer proximity of the homes increases the risk of exposure fires. In cities
where homes are placed close together, the average fire department response is over 20 firefighters due to the
need to protect adjacent structures. The street layout will increase fire apparatus response times, and a longer
response means that the fire will be an increased threat to the occupants and firefighters.
Back to Top
Sprinklers won’t affect fire department staffing levels or the number of fire stations because they will be
necessary for quick response to EMS calls.
When the fire chief states that sprinklers can help reduce future demand for more firefighters and stations,
home builders often reply that additional stations will always be needed to handle EMS calls. This may or may not
be true, depending upon the layout of the jurisdiction. But the builders argument belies the fact that EMS-oriented
fire departments, that is, ones that are staffed to handle EMS calls, typically do not have an adequate number of
firefighters to handle structure fires. So even if more fire stations are needed, sprinklers are justified to
address the risk.
An EMS-oriented fire department typically has three firefighters (sometimes two) per unit, and the stations are
situated with minimum overlap in engine company districts (areas that adjacent companies can reach in the same time).
It can be easily demonstrated that this arrangement does not provide enough firefighters to get to a fire scene in
time to effectively attack a working fire. A fire scenario in a single-family detached home will illustrate.
Fire departments consider a reasonable staffing level as one that yields enough firefighters to stop a pre-flashover
fire and perform related tasks such as search and rescue with a reasonable level of safety for the firefighters.
A certain number of tasks must be performed either simultaneously or in a highly coordinated manner, and this
requires that enough firefighters arrive at about the same time in order to perform them. For example, the attack
crew cannot enter a structure until the ventilation team is ready. Two safety firefighters must also be there. A
backup line must be readied and a water supply established within two minutes to ensure that the attack crew does
not run out of water. A search and rescue team must be ready to enter at the same time. There must be a supervisor
there to command and coordinate these activities.
Those tasks which must be performed simultaneously or in a highly coordinated manner are called "critical fireground
tasks." The number of critical tasks for a pre-flashover fire in a single-family detached home requires a minimum
of 12 firefighters, two pumpers, one ladder company and one supervisor. The recommended travel time for the first-due
company is four minutes, with all the remaining companies due with six minutes. An EMS-oriented fire department
cannot get this level of resources to a house fire in the recommended time. To do so, a fire department must staff
each apparatus with more firefighters and place stations with more overlapping districts. In regions where homes are
close to each other, even more firefighters are required to handle exposures.
Fire chiefs can handle the staffing argument by evaluating the various levels of risk in their community
(five categories usually suffice), and then selecting the appropriate number of firefighters, apparatus and travel
times to handle the critical fireground tasks in each risk level. In most instances, the evaluation will show that
an EMS configuration is only adequate if the structures in the area have sprinklers. Policymakers, like most people,
think that the nearest fire station is all that is needed for fire protection. Once they understand that even a
house fire takes a network of stations to supply enough firefighters and apparatus, they can be convinced that
sprinklers allow stations to be spread out further in an EMS configuration.
In some cases it might mean that more stations may be needed, but an EMS-oriented fire department provides a
significant savings over suppression-oriented departments. On average, sprinklered structures require one half the
number of firefighters to perform critical tasks.
Back to Top
Older homes are the problem, not new homes.
Home builders assert that older homes pose greater fire risks than new. This claim is usually linked to two
sources. The first is a survey conducted by the National Association of Home Builders NAHB) in 1987. The survey
claimed that there was a correlation between the age of homes and the frequency of fire deaths. The data came from
questionnaires that the NAHB sent to its members, who were asked to report on residential fires and verify the age
of the structure. The study had several flaws. The study did not use random sampling, and the number of reports was
small. These two factors render the data useless for making generalizations about residential fires. The source of
the data raises the question of the motives of the submitters, who would want the correlation to be found.
The report also omitted fires in manufactured homes, although these homes account for a large portion of housing
in some states (one third to one half in some states). This omission also makes it impossible to draw any valid
conclusions from their data about the relationship of fire deaths and age of housing.
Even if the data had been collected properly, the analysts opted for a simple correlation between structural age
and fire deaths, neglecting to consider other factors that might show the correlation to be a coincidence.
1 The NFPA analysis of fire loss data by state consistently show that the age of a dwelling is not a good predictor of
fire rates or fire death rates. This is obvious to anyone in the fire service for one simple reason. We know that
the majority of fires are caused by human behavior, and that has nothing to do with the age of a building. I will
expand on this below.
The second source is a study done in California by a home builders association in the mid-80’s. The report compared
the rate of fires in California with the age of homes for a six-year period and found a positive correlation. To
begin with, any simple correlation like this that does not account for the relative proportion of older v. new
housing stock will obviously find more fires (and thus more deaths) in older homes. The median age of homes in the
U. S. is over 28 years.2
Had the California home builders selected a different set of years to analyze, the results might have been
completely different. Also, the analysis neglected to indicate any anomalies that might have affected the results,
like whether the homes included in the report were being lived in or vacant (12 percent of homes are vacant). I
mention this because anomalies like a spate of incendiary fires in abandoned homes in a region can make the overall
report misleading. We do not know if anything like this affected the California study.
The bottom line is that the correlation between age of structures and fire deaths in the home builders studies
mask the real relationships, which they do not mention.3 Also, the data are taken from selected time frames. Their
findings are contradicted by analysis of national data by state over wider time frames, as the NFPA has done.
Back to Top
New homes are safer because they have interconnected, hard-wired smoke detectors with battery backup on every floor and the bedrooms.
Smoke detectors have been responsible for a sizable drop in dwelling fire deaths, but they can only warn of a fire
when they work, not stop it like sprinklers do. Analysis from the NFPA shows that smoke detectors reduce the
likelihood of dying in a dwelling fire by about 40-50 percent.4 Analysis of the effectiveness of residential fire
sprinklers shows that they increase the likelihood of survival to over 97 percent.5
Among the reasons for the limited effectiveness of smoke detectors are that young children and the elderly
often cannot escape a fire by themselves. Compared to able-bodied adults, twice as many young children die in a
dwelling fire. For the elderly, four to five times the number die in dwelling fires. A lot of new home developments
are targeting empty nesters, whose risk of fire death increases with age. Thus, the fire problem in these
developments will be compounded unless the homes are protected with sprinklers.
Back to Top
New homes are safer because grounded wiring, circuit breakers, large gauge wire and more outlets mean fewer extension cords,
fewer overloaded outlets and circuits.
To support the notion that newer homes pose lower fire risks, home builders imply that older homes must pose a
greater fire risk because of aged electrical systems. The facts prove this wrong. Electrical systems are a distant
fifth in the ranking of fire causes, accounting for 8 percent of all dwelling fires.6
Fire loss data show that most dwelling fires are caused by people, not structures.7
Over 80 percent of dwelling fires result from misuse of smoking materials, playing with matches and lighters,
and arson. Heating systems are the next highest cause of fires behind these, but only in states where people burn
wood or use portable heaters to keep warm.
The low number of electrically-caused dwelling fires is kept low because electrical systems are routinely
upgraded when homes are sold. It is not uncommon for mortgage lenders make it a routine condition of the loan.
According to the U. S. Census Bureau, in the years 1995-1997, homeowners and landlords spent 3.4 billion dollars
a year for alterations to electrical systems.8 This figure applies strictly to alterations. Money spent on repair
and maintenance is listed separately.
Back to Top
New homes are safer because central heating systems and increased insulation requirements reduce the need for portable space heaters,
a major cause of residential fire deaths.
Heating systems account for about 14 percent of dwelling fire deaths, well behind the human-related causes and
just ahead of electrical fires.9 Half of these are related to portable space heaters. This is not exactly the
"major cause of residential fire deaths" that the home builders allege. Also, there is no basis for the assertion
that central heating makes new homes safer. Central heating is far from limited to new homes. The U. S. Bureau of
the Census reports that over 90 percent of homes have central gas or electric heating.10
As for increased insulation in new homes, that is one of the reasons that they pose a greater fire threat than
older homes. In older homes that have less insulation, more heat from a fire can dissipate. As the home builders
state, new homes are well-insulated to comply with energy requirements. But they overlook the fact that in homes
with more insulation, more heat is reflected back into the room and this increases the speed of fire growth.
The data on air changes illustrates the difference that insulation makes. In older homes, there are over three
changes of air an hour. In new homes, air exchange is .3 per hour.
This is a good place to highlight the other main reason for the higher fire risk in new homes, the high fire load
from synthetic materials such as furniture cushions and coverings. Synthetics burn twice as hot as cellulosic
material (2,000F as opposed to 1,000F). They also burn twice as fast. When these products ignite in a home that
is well-insulated, the combination of higher fire load and more reflected heat lead to flashover in 3-5 minutes.
In less insulated homes with older furniture, it takes longer to reach flashover.
Flashover is the point where the fire ignites everything in the room regardless of how far away it is from the
point of ignition. When this happens, the fire gases, heat and smoke are pushed into the other rooms with a huge
wave of energy. Once a fire goes to flashover, two significant things occur. First, the threat to victims in other
rooms of the dwelling increase eightfold.11 Second, post-flashover fires require additional firefighters and
apparatus to handle, adding to the strain on fire department resources and lessening the protection available for
other residents.
Back to Top
New homes are safer because they have a fire separation between the house from the garage.
The fire separation between a house and an attached garage does not significantly affect life safety. Garage
fires account for only 1.1 percent of dwelling fires and 0.3 percent of fire deaths.12 Most fire deaths result
from fires that start right in the home. Fires that start in bedrooms, living rooms and kitchens account for
66.5 percent of fires and 80.2 percent of fire deaths.13 The threat of garage fires is so low that national
standards do not require sprinklers in them.14
Back to Top
New homes are safer because of requirements for firestopping and draftstopping.
Fire stopping and draft stopping are contained in walls and ceilings. However, as noted earlier, the vast
majority of dwelling fires start in contents (e. g., bedding, furniture, cooking items) and expand through
doorways and up open stairways. Decades of fire loss data show that fire victims die long before a fire reaches
the inside of a wall or ceiling.
Back to Top
New homes are safer because they have escape windows in bedrooms with the bottom no more that 44 inches from the floor.
The majority of homes today, including older homes, have windows that are large enough to afford escape.15 Once
again, the home builders make a plausible argument that does not stand up under scrutiny. The number of smaller
or larger windows has never been found to be related to the number of residential fire deaths. This is because
most victims are overcome before they can attempt to escape.
Back to Top
New homes are safer because they have non-combustible gypsum wallboard is on walls and ceilings in most homes.
Non-combustible walls and ceilings have been a feature of homes for generations. Since most existing homes have
gypsum wallboard or plaster, this does not distinguish new homes from old as builders imply.
Back to Top
Sprinklers do not always put out fast-flaming fires and smoldering fires may cause deaths and smoke damage without activating the sprinklers.
The statement that sprinklers do not extinguish fast-flaming fires is simply false. A recent report from Scottsdale,
Arizona compared 10 years of fires in homes with sprinklers and those without them. The report contains case studies
to compare the difference that sprinkler made. Several of the fires in the case studies involved gasoline, and
the sprinklers extinguished every one of them.
The statement about the role of smoldering fires is also without basis in fact. Per Dr. John Hall, the lead data
analyst at the NFPA, the data from fire loss reports indicate that the smoke produced by open flames kills most
people in dwellings, not smoke from smoldering fires.
As for smoldering fires that do not proceed to the flaming stage, it has been my experience that they constitute
the minority of fire scenarios. It is obvious, then, that residential fire sprinklers will cover the typical
dwelling fire scenario.
Back to Top
Insurance companies rarely give discounts for sprinklers.
The statement is quite wrong. Our data show that property insurers routinely reduce fire premiums by 10-20
percent or higher when sprinklers are installed. As for the chance of water damage from freezing, it is less
than in the plumbing because sprinkler piping and fittings are rated at about three times the pressure of plumbing
pipe. And one should note that insurers don’t penalize home owners for having plumbing.
As for the smoke and water damage that the home builders purport will occur, the 10-year evaluation of the
Scottsdale fire department shows that this type of damage is around nine times less in homes that are protected
by sprinklers. The reason is that sprinklers operate before a fire can do much damage and use one tenth the amount
of water used by fire department hose.
Back to Top
Sprinkler systems themselves are expensive. They typically add $2500-3500 to the cost of a home ($1.00 per square foot)*.
Are sprinklers expensive? Their cost compares with that of an upgrade in the quality of carpeting, about one
percent or less of the total cost of the home. Carpet upgrades are routine choices that most people do not regard
as overly expensive, let alone a staggering cost that prevents them from buying a home. But sprinklers last the
life of a home while carpet needs to be replaced at least every ten years, so the total cost of sprinklers is much
less than the total cost of carpeting.
*While $1.00/sq ft has been realized in many areas of the United States. This price range can vary depending on
where a residential sprinkler ordinance is enacted and enforced. Residential fire sprinkler ordinances create
sprinkler installation competition. Competitive bids are what keeps prices their lowest. The RFSI is willing
and able to work with local fire and city officials to write and adopt a residential sprinkler ordinance in any
community. Contact the RFSI director at rfsirlm@myfmtc.comt for details and/or assistance.
Back to Top
The cost of sprinkler systems will prevent many people from becoming home buyers.
Home builders continue to make this claim but never back it up with hard data. There are several ways to counter
the argument.
The net cost of sprinklers has to be considered, and the net cost may be very low. For example, any trade-offs
given to a developer (narrower streets, fewer fire hydrants, etc.) lower the cost of the property, and that
lowers the net cost to the builder and buyer unless the builder is pocketing the difference.
When considering the net cost of sprinklers, fire chiefs should include the cost reduction to the homeowner of
lower taxes for fewer fire stations or keeping a volunteer staff instead of going to paid personnel.
The home builders will also cite the need for "affordable housing." They typically are not building starter homes
but move-up homes instead. As people move from starter homes to move-up homes, the existing starter homes become
available for others to buy.
When discussing installation costs, express the costs as a percent of the home’s cost. Home builders will cite
the total dollar cost without mentioning the size of the home, and this can make it sound expensive. For example,
if the cost per square foot is 95 cents and a home has 5,000 square feet, the estimated cost will be $4,750.00.
But if the home costs $500,000.00, the sprinkler cost is less than one percent. Relative to the total cost, then,
it is very modest.
Back to Top
There are also other costs involved.
The possibility of increased fees to water authorities are largely baseless, although we do find water authorities
from time to time that charge a fee if a larger water meter is needed. In these cases, the fire department needs
to work with the water authority to remove such charges. As for sprinkler companies running tests, some homeowners
will elect to have someone do this but they can also do it themselves. Maintenance costs are practically nil
because there are no moving parts. In areas of the country where special backflow prevention devices are required,
they have to be tested each year. If local requirements call for a simple check valve, then this is not an issue.
We have not seen an increase in plan review and inspection fees that home builders predict. Normally, the size of
a plan review fee is based on the size of the home, not what is in it. Cities like Scottsdale, Arizona drop all
plan review fees for sprinklered homes as part of their incentive package.
The other costs alleged are non-existent. For one, sprinklers reduce the amount of water that a water authority
must supply because they decrease the required municipal fire flow. This can allow smaller water mains, fewer
fire hydrants and less storage, all of which reduce the costs to the water authority. Fire chiefs need to educate
their water purveyors about these facts so that they do not overbuild the water system.
Back to Top
The average life of a fire sprinkler system is 30 years and ironically enough the system is needed the most when
it’s expected life-time is over.
There is no truth to the statement that sprinkler systems only last 30 years. The source of this statement has
been traced to a report published shortly after residential sprinklers came on the market back in 1982. The authors
stated that they were referring to the "financial life" of a sprinkler system – not the physical life - but
builders elected to take the remark out of context.
Here is what the report says. "The life of fast-response sprinkler systems, with polybutylene piping, has not
been empirically validated for residential use; however, plumbing systems in houses and sprinkler apparatus in
commercial buildings appear to have relatively long lives. The specific choice of a 30 year study period is based
on the customary 30 year mortgage lending period for residential housing."
The requirements of Underwriters Laboratories (UL) for sprinkler pipe confirm that residential sprinkler systems
will last far beyond 30 years. All sprinkler components are subjected to a 50-year usable life test using a safety
factor of 2. Practically speaking, then, UL-listed components will have a minimum useful life of at least 100 years.
All of the evidence supports the fact that residential sprinklers give families a superior level of fire protection.
Fire chiefs who adopt sprinkler ordinances can also reduce future costs of the fire department. If home builders
were truly not opposed to features that add to the safety of the homeowner as they often allege, then they would
be proponents of sprinklers.
Back to Top
Sprinklers create and harbor MOLD in homes.
In 2004, mold is being used by sprinkler opponents as an argument against sprinkler installations. Mold, according
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is a part of our environment; one of the ways nature disposes
of organic matter.
Mold does this by breaking down and decomposing material that it grows on. Mold inside the home is not good,
because where it grows, damage is likely to result. Air-borne mold spores have been connected to health problems,
including allergic reactions such as skin rash, nasal congestion, runny-nose and sneezing.
Mold likes dark places and moist surfaces, but mold spores will not grow if moisture is not present. Mold right
now is lurking in thousands of homes. But blaming sprinklers for mold problems is merely an absurd scare tactic.
Fire and building professionals are not being taken in by the mold arguments of anti-sprinkler groups; but
unfortunately government officials being pressured to deny or repeal a sprinkler ordinance might be, as are
prospective homeowners contemplating sprinklers.
To combat the mold argument, here are the facts.
Any water pipe that leaks, or upon which moisture is allowed to condense and stand for extended periods of time,
is susceptible to mold. Small leaks under sinks or bathroom appliances are ideal harbors for mold, as are damp
areas in basements. Water lines, whether supply or drain, will not harbor mold when properly installed and
maintained. Fire sprinkler supply lines can contribute to mold only if there is a system failure, and sprinkler
lines are less susceptible to failure than domestic plumbing.
In querying the owner of a gulf-coast business engaged in mold remediation, he informed RFSI that none of the
homes he had worked in were equipped with fire sprinklers.
Sprinklers are not the problem; humidity, condensation and water leaks are. Only when groups who object to fire
sprinklers because of allegations of mold also object to flush toilets for the same reason will RFSI accept their
concerns as being sincere.
An EPA publication (reference EPA Publication #402-K-02-003) entitled Mold, Moisture and Your Home is available
on-line, and can be ordered from the EPA website at
http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/moldguide.html or by writing to:
U.S. EPA, Office of Air and Radiation
Indoor Environments Division (6609J)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460
Let’s deal with the real problem, but the problem isn’t fire sprinklers.
Back to Top
Footnotes:
1. U. S. Fire Death Patterns by State, 1980-1991, National Fire Protection Association, September 1995, page 14.
National Fire Protection Association, Fire Analysis & Research Division, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02269-9101.
2. Report on Housing, 1993, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
3. Op Cit, The National Fire Protection Association.
4. U. S. Experience With Smoke Detectors, National Fire Protection Association, September, 1997, p. 3.
5. Automatic Sprinklers: a 10 Year Study, Rural/Metro Fire Department, Scottsdale, Arizona, 1997.
6. Patterns of Fire Casualties in Home Fires by Age and Sex, National Fire Protection Association, September 1995, p. 8.
7. Annual reports from the United States Fire Administration, the National Fire Protection Association and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission consistently show that misuse of smoking materials, arson, children playing with
matches/lighters and cooking account for over 80 percent of residential fires. Electrical fires consistently
account for around 14 percent of residential fires and place a distant fourth or fifth in the ranking of fire causes.
8. 1997 Report on Expenditures for Residential Improvements and Repairs, U. S. Census Bureau.
9. Op Cit, National Fire Protection Association, September 1995, p. 12.
10. American Housing Survey for the United States in 1995, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
11. Analysis of Mattress and Furniture Fires, National Fire Protection Association, 1997.
12. NFPA 13D, National Fire Protection Association, 1996 edition, Table A-1-2.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. The model building codes accept windows with 5.7 square feet of openable area as escape windows.
16. "A Benefit-Cost Model of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems," U. S. Department of Commerce/National Bureau of
Standards Technical Note 1203, November 1984.
17. Ibid, page 106.
(FAQ's Courtesy of Residential Fire Safety Institute)
Other Useful Links:
San Juan Economic Development Service
Freewill Power
FIRE PROTECTION:
USFA Residential Sprinklers
The Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition
Residential Fire Safety Institute
AFSA
Kwench Systems
BOISE, ID:
Exterior Elements
FARMINGTON, NM:
Farmington on Today
Deluxe Drafting
King Sun Solar
Aztec Chamber
Bloomfield Chamber of Commerce
Farmington Convention and Visitor's Bureau
Farmington Daily-Times
Farmington City Government
San Juan College
San Juan County
© 2006 Fire Safe Homes. All rights reserved