Residential Fire Sprinklers .com

Protecting Your Home & Family

This rebuttal is in response to the article written by Randy D. Roxson. Sprinkler Fitter Unions Across Nation Support Fire Sprinklers

Not surprisingly, Mr. Roxson completely misstates my position on the issue of fire sprinkler fitter training and certification. As a principal owner of a firm that plans, designs and manages the construction of fire sprinkler systems, I have an acute and committed concern about the quality of work done by sprinkler fitters industry-wide. Our clients include architects, developers and both union and open-shop contractors, and our designs are installed by technicians with both union and non-union training. I am in favor of any and all efforts, programs, etc. that will further the training and skills of fire sprinkler fitters, so long as any such program is a professional, thoughtful and substantial one that is conceived and implemented by way of a consensus process and in partnership with all stakeholders. In my opinion, those stakeholders should include union and non-union contractors, apprenticeship proctors, labor department administrators, fire service representatives, the American and National Fire Sprinkler Associations and other recognized experts – NONE of whom were consulted by the author(s) of AB-2288 until long after the bill was written and submitted to the California Assembly. Show me a program that is a genuine consensus effort from its inception, and I’ll be first in line to support it.

I will leave it to the reader to determine what Mr. Roxson actually meant by his statements. His articulate backpedalling is appreciated, as it at least illustrates that he and the unions understand how patently ridiculous and inflammatory his original statements were. But it is inaccurate to say that his statements were taken out of context, as they were quoted word for word. I challenge Mr. Roxson and the Sprinkler Fitters Unions – both the California and USA Sprinkler Fitters Associations – to make an articulate statement of support for fire sprinkler codes, regulations and ordinances, not only in California but throughout the rest of the country. Here again is what he said, “As such, we go on record with a new policy statement from the Sprinkler Fitters Union of California. We will actively, openly, and adamantly oppose any proposed California state law, regulation, or local city or county ordinance that will require fire sprinklers or any other type of fire suppression system unless attached are adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems.”

If IRC Proposal RB64-07/08 is approved, the International Residential Code will be amended to require fire sprinklers in all one and two-family dwellings. But we must remember that IRC is a model code, and the implementation of any model code – be it IBC, IFC or IRC – occurs at the state level, usually by way of a regulatory or legislative process. Even if the IRC adopts the residential fire sprinkler provision, it will up to the states to determine if the code will be adopted as is, or with amendments. And, as legislative advocate and lobbyist in California, Mr. Roxson is well aware of how this process works in our state. The 2007 California Building and Fire Codes are heavily amended versions of the 2006 ICC model codes; we’re not shy about amendments in California.

So if the Union in fact intends to oppose, “… any proposed California state law, regulation, or local city or county ordinance that will require fire sprinklers or any other type of fire suppression system”, it is reasonable to deduce that they will oppose the state adoption of the IRC as amended to require sprinklers, pursuant to Mr. Roxson’s clearly stated intention to do just that. What if a city wishes to create or amend a speculative building ordinance or establish higher design density criteria for fire sprinkler systems than the minimums prescribed by current codes or NFPA standards? What about a mitigation policy that prescribes fire sprinklers in lieu of apparatus access or hydrant proximity to a proposed project? Will they oppose such actions unless accompanied by, “…adequate training requirements for the installers of such systems”?

It is disingenuous for Mr. Roxson to suggest that there is any questionable context to his comments. In fact, the unions’ actual intentions seem clear, albeit cloaked in the hard-headed rhetoric of a special-interest lobbying effort. But the language Mr. Roxson has used, both in his original comments and in his rebuttal to mine, absolutely do NOT unconditionally support fire sprinkler code and regulatory requirements. I challenge Mr. Roxson and the leadership of the California and USA Sprinkler Fitters Associations to clearly, unequivocally and UNCONDITIONALLY support fire sprinkler requirements without any partisan political strings attached. It would seem reasonable and prudent for them to do so, especially in consideration of the fact that the USA Sprinkler Fitters logo (as printed on Mr. Roxson’s business card) clearly states, “Sprinklers Are For Everyone”.

The original article written by Steve Leyton on this topic is Sprinkler Fitters Union To Oppose Fire Sprinklers

A formal response to this rebuttal has been written by Randy D. Roxson. The Sprinkler Fitters Union Support Fire Sprinklers

Recently, Steve Leyton, an adamant opponent of California’s AB 2288 (Torrico), which will require sprinkler installers to be trained, submitted an article to this site entitled “SPRINKLER FITTERS UNION TO OPPOSE FIRE SPRINKLERS”. While this makes a good headline to get one’s attention, it is not necessarily truthful. Mr. Leyton is opposed to required minimum training and certification of sprinkler fitters, so he authored this article with the intent to persuade those in support of minimum required training, which includes fire departments, fire marshals, fire chiefs, and fire service organizations, to instead oppose our legislative bill. California’s AB 2288 is all about establishing a minimum standard for training for those who install fire suppression systems.

My statement is taken out of context and was made, not on behalf of the USA Sprinkler Fitters Association, but on behalf of my advocacy for the California contingency of sprinkler fitter unions (aka California Sprinkler Fitters Association). And, more importantly, the California Sprinkler Fitters Association do not oppose fire sprinklers, but oppose California’s current legal and regulatory structure that permits anyone, regardless of qualification to install these life safety systems.

Thus, currently in California there are no requirements that a sprinkler installer be trained to install a fire sprinkler system in any occupancy, including highrise office buildings, health facilities, assembly occupancies, to name just a few.

The USA Sprinkler Fitters Association, and the California Sprinkler Fitters Association are adamant and continued supporters of IRC Proposal RB64-07/08, which will provide a requirement for fire sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings in the International Residential Code (IRC). We urge all ICC members to attend the ICC hearings this September in Minnesota, and those who are eligible, to vote against the decision to disapprove IRC Proposal RB64-07/08. Additionally, both the USA Sprinkler Fitters Association and the California Sprinkler Fitters Association support and have actively lobbied Congress to pass the Federal Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act.

As you know, upon the adoption of a requirement for fire sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings in the IRC, the individual states and/or local jurisdictions must adopt this model code provision for it to become effective. It will be at this time, in California that the California Sprinkler Fitters Association will only support adoption if adequate training requirements are already in law or contained in the California language with the requirement for fire sprinklers. This is not being opposed to fire sprinklers and is not too much to ask for in light of the lives that training may save.

To label AB 2288 a “union” bill is simply a political maneuver on the part of our opposition who are desperate and willing to say anything to make AB 2288 go away. My challenge to all is to actually read AB 2288. While the union-sponsored apprenticeship program is one method of obtaining the requisite training for certification, it is not the only method. In fact, there are several methods for obtaining certification having nothing to do with sprinkler fitter union apprenticeship programs. It is right there in the language for all to read.

We continue to stand by our position that ALL installers should attend an adequate training program and be qualified to install a life safety fire sprinkler system, and that we fully support the IRC model code adoption of required fire sprinklers in one- and two-family dwellings.

A formal rebuttal to this article has been written by Steve Leyton. Rebuttal to Sprinkler Fitter Unions Support of Fire Sprinklers Article

By CHRISTIAN M. WADE – Tampa Tribune

ZEPHYRHILLS – The developer of a massive town home project could be exempted from the new municipal sprinkler law, under a tentative agreement reached with city officials.

Miami-based Lennar Homes LLC – developer of the 250-unit Eiland Park Townhomes – argues they should be grandfathered in under the new ordinance because the complex was approved long before the city council passed the law.

City Manager Steve Spina said negotiations between city officials and the company have resulted in a deal that will exempt the homebuilder from installing the fire safety devices.

Ultimately, the council, which meets at 6 this evening, has to sign off on the agreement.

Initially, city officials had opposed Lennar’s exemption request. They argued that the gated community going up off Eiland Boulevard is only partially constructed and most of the town homes there haven’t been permitted yet.

Those already permitted wouldn’t have to include sprinklers.

But Lennar’s lawyers poked holes in the new law, arguing that it doesn’t meet the statutory requirements for a local amendment to the state’s fire prevention codes.

In a written complaint, they also criticized the appeal system as lacking in due process.

“The procedure that the city has provided for us to challenge the validity of the ordinance is flawed because it is being heard by the same body that approved it,” the complaint stated.

Spina said he and other Zephyrhills officials were worried about the possibility of a legal challenge if council members rejected Lennar’s request to be grandfathered in.

“That was certainly a concern,” Spina said. “They Lennar are holding all the cards.”

Marshall Ames, a Lennar spokesman in Miami, declined to comment. Attorneys for the homebuilder are expected to attend tonight’s council meeting.

The law, approved in September, requires all new residential and commercial projects with more than 5,000 square feet to install fire sprinkler systems.

Existing businesses are required to install the systems if they renovate, expand or convert their buildings for other uses.

Approval of the new regulations was hard-fought. Several council members, including now-council President Danny Burgess, questioned the need for it. The vote was 3-2.

Under the new law, affected parties are allowed to file an appeal for an exemption.

To read the full article click here.

MyFox Washington DC

BOWIE, MD – Fire crews say one person was found dead after an early-morning house fire in Prince George’s County on Tuesday, but they’re still trying to determine what started it.

Firefighters say the blaze sparked at a home on Jenkins Ridge Road in Bowie just before 5 a.m. Neighbors reported hearing loud popping sounds, and they say they ran outside to find the house consumed by fire.

“I was out taking my morning walk and I heard these sounds,” said Sheila Griffiths, who lives nearby.

Firefighters ran into the home to search for victims, but they were beaten back by flames and a collapsing structure. When they got another chance to go inside, they found a body in a bedroom over the garage.

The victim’s identity has not been confirmed because officials say the body was burned too badly to be identified, but friends and family at the scene told FOX 5 that the woman who owned the home was killed.

To read the full article click here.

By PAT GROSSMITH – The Union Leader

MANCHESTER – An early warning smoke alarm system, along with sprinklers, are being credited with containing a fire this morning to a ground floor bedroom in an Eastern Avenue apartment building.

District Chief Vinny Toland said when the fire alarm sounded inside 207 Eastern Ave. at Hillview Apartments, it automatically alerted an alarm company which immediately called the fire department.

Additionally, he said the building was constructed to meet modern building codes and has sprinklers throughout it. As a result, when firefighters arrived, sprinklers had pretty much doused all the flames.

The fire was reported at 7:51 a.m. It was completely out 10 minutes after fire crews were on the scene.

David Bouthiette, a maintenance worker at the apartment complex, said the fire alarm system worked as designed: The alarms sounded, people evacuated and the sprinkler system went off.

“It saved the whole apartment and saved the building,” he said.

To read the full article click here.

Location:	Gilbert, AZ
Home Type:	Single Family
Yr Built:	2007
Sq. Ft.:	2694
Yr Sprinklers Installed:	2007
Sprinkler Cost:	$4000*

In 2007, Travis Mack decided to have his new Gilbert, Arizona, home built with residential fire sprinklers. Travis reasons, “I work in the fire sprinkler industry and feel that it is appropriate that I practice what I preach. I also work from home and want the protection for my business as well as the piece of mind it provides for me in knowing that my family would be safe in the event of a fire. We have a young child and pets that I want protected in times of fire should it ever happen.”

The house is a 2694 square foot, one story single family dwelling. Although Travis intended the house to be built with sprinklers from the beginning, the builder would not allow the sprinkler installation to take place during the home’s construction. Travis notes, “I live in a single story home with a large attic, so I knew that it could be retrofitted relatively easy. However, if this was a 2 story, I would have taken this fight to the local building official to let me have fire sprinklers if needed.” Travis chose to retrofit the home with a fire sprinkler system immediately after taking possession of the home from the builder.

As a professional fire sprinkler system designer, Travis designed the system himself. One of his business clients, Wicked Fire Protection of Flagstaff, AZ, agreed to perform the installation at cost. *This resulted in the entire home fire sprinkler retrofit only costing $4000 or $1.48 a sq. ft.

The home insurer is Ameriprise, and at this time, Travis does not receive a discount for having fire sprinklers. He indicates, “We have not had any monetary benefits as far as insurance premium reduction because we are max’d out already. We have deductions for a new home, smoke detectors, central alarm and a few others. The fire sprinkler discount will kick in at year 5. The benefit is that we will be able to keep our current “lower” premium for years to come because as current deductions phase out, the fire sprinkler deduction will cover those.”

Maintenance has not been an issue for Travis. The system is only about 6 months old. He has not had any problems, and currently, he is estimating that maintaining the system will cost less than $100 per year.

Travis feels that his residential fire sprinklers provide peace of mind that nothing else could give. In his words, “I have a greater piece of mind knowing that my home is safe when we are around or away. Our fire sprinkler system is tied to a central monitoring station so that even if a fire occurs and we are not home, the local fire department will respond and deal with the issue. Also, having small children at home, it is always nice to know that should a fire occur, we will be able to get out of the house safely.”

For more case study examples see the Case Studies Category

Is your home protected by a residential fire sprinkler system? If yes, we would like to know about it and feature you and your home in a case study. Download the “Installing Residential Fire Sprinklers Questionnaire”, answer the questions and return the completed questionnaire as indicated. We will use the information provided to publish a case study sharing your experience with residential fire sprinklers.

By Russell Sanders – Courier Journal

The No. 1 priority of government at all levels is public safety. Elected and appointed officials often talk about the importance of fire safety, but it’s nothing but rhetoric if they don’t participate in the development, adoption and enforcement of the model building and fire codes.
Advertisement

These codes are written to provide a minimum level of safety. Too often, however, to appease special interest groups focused on saving money, fire and life-safety provisions are removed from these minimum codes. Last month, for example, there was an attempt to weaken the electrical code. Kentucky fire and electrical professionals showed up in Frankfort in mass to oppose the proposed changes, which would have made residents of our state more vulnerable to the risk of fire.

On Monday, state regulators are holding a hearing on the issue of whether local elected officials have the authority to adopt more stringent fire and life-safety provisions in their communities. Clearly the intent of the proposed new rules is to prevent communities from adopting life-saving ordinances, namely one- and two-family dwelling sprinkler ordinances like one recently adopted by the city of Indian Hills.

I first ran into this question of who has the authority in the early ’90s when I was Louisville’s fire chief. Back then, the issue was a local ordinance to require the retro-fitting of high-rise buildings with sprinklers. The ordinance was logical: Mayor Jerry Abramson and I had seen too many examples of tragedies that could have been either prevented or at least made less tragic — the MGM fire in Las Vegas, for instance, where 85 people died. It was just common sense that people who live and work in high rises here, along with the fire fighters who are called upon to respond to those fires, should have the protection sprinklers afford.

And yet state regulators objected. They claimed that the minimum building standards in Kentucky were also the maximum standards — a claim they now are making again. I saw no evidence in the law that this was true then, and I still see none. So we proceeded with our plan in Louisville, and all high-rise buildings are now fitted with sprinklers.

The focus of the current attempt to enforce what’s called “mini-maxi” regulations is the sprinkler requirement for new homes constructed in Indian Hills that was recently passed by the Indian Hills City Council. The idea is no more outrageous than sprinklers in high rises were in the early ’90s.

For example, 46 cities in the Chicago metropolitan area have a similar requirement. So do many cities and counties in Arizona, California, Georgia and Maryland, to name only a few. But state regulators are claiming that because the state building and residential codes don’t require sprinklers in new dwellings, local jurisdictions can’t either. What’s the logic of that?

Here’s what we know: Fires kill more people in the U.S. every year than all natural disasters combined. Eighty percent of all fire deaths occur in the home. The single most effective way to prevent fire-related deaths is the installation of residential fire sprinklers.

If installed during new home construction — as the Indian Hills ordinance would require — home fire sprinklers generally cost between 1 and 1.5 percent of the total building cost, which is about what a homebuyer would pay for an upgrade in carpeting. Residential sprinklers are small, and can be recessed into ceilings or walls. Some models are completely concealed.

I have been in involved in the fire service for more than 40 years, 29 with the city of Louisville and 13 with the National Fire Protection Association. I’ve seen countless deaths and horrific burn injuries that could have and should have been prevented.

Any fire professional will tell you that the most effective way to prevent these tragedies is sprinkler protection. The state should not stand in the way of progressive political leaders who put the health and safety of their citizens first.

Russell E. Sanders is a retired chief of the Louisville Fire Department. He is now manager of the National Fire Protection Association.

To read the full article click here.

By Karl Koning – RentonReporter.com

As a residential designer in Renton, I feel compelled to respond to a recent letter to the editor. My goal as a designer is to produce the best home solution for my client. This may or may not include fire sprinklers but does consider their “bottom line” and safety. Fire sprinkler systems are good to have but should not always be required.

The writer’s obvious bias against the Master Builder’s Association (MBA) seems to have affected his math abilities. If a fire sprinkler system costs one-half percent of a new home’s price, that would average $2,000 in a $400,000 home. The actual installed cost averages over $8,000. Spread it over a 30-year loan and it doubles to $16,000. The savings one can expect from homeowners insurance on a $400,000 home would be about $100 per year. $16,000/$100 equals a 160-year payoff. This alone is “economic grounds” to avoid sprinklers.

Keep in mind that residential fire-sprinkler systems are not fire-suppression systems. While they may put out a small fire directly in their path, they are specifically designed to increase the escape time occupants have before the fire gets beyond its control. This effectively negates fire and water damages as a cost variable. Fire marshals can and do require fire sprinklers wherever the fire department cannot respond to or gain complete access to, regardless of a city’s codes.

New homes within four to six minutes of a fire department (most of us), with all of today’s required life-safety technology, are not unsafe. To expect that a builder must “eat” the cost of a sprinkler system shows ignorance in construction and basic economics. The additional cost, with the contractor’s typical markup, will be added onto the house’s cost, guaranteeing higher-cost homes. Water departments will have to redesign their systems to provide increased availability, adding costs to everyone with or without sprinkler systems. It is an enhancement and will be marketed that way, forcing up the basic cost of any new home.

Forced requirement of sprinklers in every new home is an additional and unnecessary intrusion of government into our daily lives that is not yet economically irrelevant as the writer attempted to promote. Have an escape plan; test your smoke detectors monthly and keep them working; learn to use extinquishers;if you can afford it, put in sprinklers, and use common scense to avoid fire hazards.

To read the full article click here.

Fort Mills Times

WASILLA, Alaska — Officials in Wasilla are crediting a sprinkler system with preventing extensive damage during a fire at a senior independent living facility.

The fire started Sunday in a recliner located in one of the facility’s 32 apartments.

Firefighters and equipment were dispatched to the scene, only to find most residents had already evacuated and the center’s sprinkler system had put out the fire.

The automated fire sprinkler system activated in the living room, containing the fire to the recliner and surrounding items.

The appraised value of the building is more than $1.3 million. The estimated fire damage is less than $1,000.

Officials say had there not been a sprinkler system, greater damage likely would have occurred.

To read the full article click here.

By Charles E. Brown – Seattle Times

A neighbor across the hall from Diana Martin’s second-floor unit in the Roanoke Terrace apartment building led her to safety Monday afternoon.

Her 12-year-old tabby cat, Fitzgerald, was overcome by smoke and resuscitated at the scene by Seattle firefighters.

At least three of the units in the 16-unit, four-story apartment building in the 2600 block of Eastlake Avenue East were heavily damaged by the blaze that Seattle Fire Department spokeswoman Helen Fitzpatrick said appeared to have spread from the balcony of Martin’s one-bedroom unit, on the south side of the building.

The call came in shortly after 5:30 p.m. Firefighters arrived to find heavy black smoke pouring from the unit and fire extending up the building exterior to the third and fourth floors.

To read the full article click here.