First of all, as an investigator you should really check you facts before you publish them. If you know someone who is charging 30K to install a residential sprinkler in a single family dwelling, he’s a crook and should be in jail. We all know that only the systems that all the heads activate at once if you hold a match up to one head cost that kind of money. Unfortunately the public believes that kind of malarkey especially when it comes from one with fire safety consultant credintials, someone who should know better.

Let’s explore how not installing sprinklers will affect the economy:

The home builders opposed to the legislation will surly prosper and create all kinds of new jobs rebuilding homes that burn down or remodel those that are severely damaged. I wonder if those kinds of repairs come close to 30K.

Let’s not forget the insurance adjusters that will have secure jobs with all the huge insurance claims. What kind of claims?

How about those from the hospitals and burn centers treating patients with life altering or life ending injuries to not only the occupants but to the firefighters as well who will be entering the structure just about the time flashover normally occurs.

Oh yea, dont forget the funeral homes increasing thier revenue too (there’s another 30K).

Look at all the employment opportunities for new-young eager firefighters filling the slots vacated by our fallen brothers and sisters.

We can also envision all the neighborhood revitalization that will continue to take place even if the occupants and firefighters aren’t injured, then we only we’re only talking menial things like family heirlooms, photographs, worthless hand-me-downs from generation to generation. Blah, blah, blah…

You know the US Fire Administration published that an averaging a buck-fifty per square foot to install a residential sprinkler system in new construction. a dollar and 61 cents per square foot? That sound like a pretty good deal to me…

NFPA recommends three types of early fire detection be in homes, which include ionization detectors, photo-electric detectors, and heat detectors. Why not make that the code before requiring sprinkler systems?

Why not start with requiring fully monitored smoke/heat alarm systems, with all alarms being monitored, not just one per level? Monitored alarms allow the residents to know which direction to run, or where to go to put the fire out before it gets out of hand and allows firefighters to know exactly which rooms are involved instead of all alarms going off at once and no one knows where the fire is until they are in it?

Why not require heat detectors in the attic, kitchen, furnace/utility, garage, laundry, family room/TV room, and other such rooms, where smoke detectors can’t be placed due to environmental factors? Sprinkler systems are absolutely ineffective on attic fires, that can continue to develop undetected for hours. The homeowners are unaware of the fire until the roof crashes in on them. The sprikler will do nothing but keep their bodies from burning.

Who pays for the sprikler systems that cost around $30,000 to install? Everyone pays because the insurance companies will pass the cost onto all of their clients. They will pass the cost to everyone…everyone…not just the homeowner with the system. Plus, when the sprinkler system is activated, additional costs are incurred by…everyone.

What are the other more effective and more economical alternatives to help protect lives, firefighters, insurance companies, and all insured clients?

To view the notice of appeal hearing click on the following ICC Appeal Hearing Notice for RB64 and RB66

See FPANT Letter to ICC Regarding NAHB Appeal