The State of California has adopted building code changes that will require all new one- and two-family homes and townhouses built in the state starting January 1, 2011, to be equipped with life-saving fire sprinkler systems.
The California State Building Standards Commission voted yesterday unanimously by a margin of 10-0 in favor of adopting the 2010 California Residential Code, which includes the 2009 International Residential Code as established by the International Code Council in September 2008. With this action, California becomes the third state to formally adopt the code. As the most populous state in the U.S., this is a huge victory for proponents of life safety. The new code requirement becomes effective January 1, 2011.
“This is another step forward in our efforts to eradicate the home fire death problem. By requiring home fire sprinklers in new homes, California adds an important safeguard for the people in the state,” said Jim Shannon, NFPA President. “We are hopeful their action will lead to more states doing the same in order to save lives from fire.”
The residential sprinkler requirement was voted into the 2009 IRC Code by building code officials from all over the U.S., gaining more than two-thirds of the vote. This demonstrated that officials very clearly see the need to require sprinkler technology as a life-saving measure.
It took a lot of hard work and dedication for this to become a reality. The CAL Fire-Office of the State Fire Marshal took an early lead position, by bringing stakeholders to the table to study the feasibility of adopting this code. The Residential Fire Sprinkler Task Force issued Phase I and Phase II of their final report in June and July of 2009, respectively.
NFPA Regional Manager Ray Bizal actively participated in the task force. “The California homebuilders did not oppose the adoption of the requirement,” said Bizal. The California Building Industry Association also participated. Everyone on the ground worked cooperatively towards the goal. Their model is to be emulated.
john heller
john heller May 16, 2010 at 6:32 pm
I am an electrician for about 27 years this is getting crazzy leave well enough alone the arc fault through the house is stupider than sh..
try too trouble shoot a arc fult problem it sucks
please stay in your heated offices and or ac knock this the hell off if if a fire is gonna start it happens its life
Laura Tescar
Laura Tescar November 2, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I know many homeowners who have had major water damage from fire sprinkler systems, including us to the tune of $30K. We have a fire station a half mile from where we live. Many fire sprinkler systems cause MUCH more water damage than do save homes from fires. It’s an antiquated, lame-brained solution. MAYBE in very rural areas, but not in track homes located a mile or less from a fire station. IT IS RIDICULOUS THAT WE ARE FORCED TO HAVE THIS STUPID SYSTEM IN OUR HOME. OKAY SO IT PUTS OUT A FIRE (MAYBE) — NOW WE ARE STUCK WITH MASSIVE WATER DAMAGE. DUHHHHHHH !!!!
Tim Osgood
Tim Osgood November 3, 2010 at 8:27 pm
To your regard Ms. Laura Have you ever seen what the local fire department will do with their hoses when they come into your house to put out a fire they don’t care whats in the way of there hose streams at 125 PSI it goes right through dry wall and puts out around 500 GPM(Gallons per minute) a residential sprinkler put ot at most maybe 7 GPM at most. What is easier to clean up water or ashes?
Ralph
Ralph November 13, 2010 at 12:23 pm
Tim,
Your answer to Ms. Laura is pretty good. She sounds like she works for the American Home Burners Association.
If she had $30,000 worth of damage from a sprinkler, it must have been on an upper floor with no indication that the sprinkler had activated and noone was at the fire house when the alarm came in.
If a sprinkler system is properly installed, with horn-strobes that activate with water flow or even with smoke detectors, and the neighbors know what the horn-strobe is for, there is no reason for the “stupid system” to cause that much damage.
People did not like “stupid seatbelts”, “stupid GFCIs”, “stupid safety glass” or “stupid smoke detectors” when they first became requirements. People often don’t know enough about the reasons for and results of having all of these “stupid systems” required. In general, people will not do the right thing unless they are forced to by requlation.
Keep up the good fight for residential sprinklers.
Travis
Travis November 17, 2010 at 1:38 pm
I’ am a fire code official and Ms. Tescar has a right to her opinion we should educate rather than insult, Ms. Tescar I understand your concern $30K is alot of money although the last research is that not one life has been lost with an NFPA 13D system properly installed and maintained and the loss of a life cannot have a price put on it.
Eric
Eric November 28, 2010 at 8:30 pm
80% of all fire deaths occur in residences. These 13D systems allow occupants to escape by preventing flashover and maintaining survivable conditions for around 10 minutes. As stated in previous post’s if the system is installed correctly the chance of a false alarm is minimal. Wouldn’t you rather have ten minutes to escape rather than die? put that in your pipe and smoke it…
Eric
Eric November 28, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Even though you live half a mile from the fire station, your house could be totally involved by the time they arrive. with the amount of plastics and other types of synthetic materials being used in todays homes flashover is being achieved with greater speeds. This means that even though you live half a mile from the station your house surely could be destroyed by the time the FD takes about 4-5 minutes to arrive. The 13D system would prevent this from happening thus you could escape, and continue to write comments in this blog about how these 13D systems suck….CHEERIO!
structural engineer
structural engineer December 7, 2010 at 10:28 am
Well, to be fair when considering cost and benefit- how much does it cost, on average, to install one of these systems in a home?
Residential Fire Sprinklers .com
Residential Fire Sprinklers .com December 19, 2010 at 10:25 pm
The cost of a sprinkler system depends on several factors such as new construction or remodel, available water supply and floor plan of the house. There is a study that has been published on the cost of residential systems that may be helpful:
http://www.residentialfiresprinklers.com/blog/residential-fire-sprinklers-cost-and-insurance-discount-study-released/
Kraus
Kraus January 18, 2011 at 12:40 am
In response to “structural engineer’s” question.
In my experience, on custom single-family home projects in northern California (approx. 2000 sf to 2500 sf in size), the cost of a fire sprinkler system runs about $6K to $7K plus the costs of hooking up to the municipal water system (which varies from one jurisdiction to the next).
Sean
Sean September 14, 2011 at 10:33 am
This new requirement is total BS. Has no one in government taken Econ 101 and learned the law of diminishing returns? It will cost me $7000 to build one of these into my new 3500 sq. ft. house, which already is required to have smoke detectors, etc. For that money, my chance of surviving a fire in my house will improve from 99.4% to 99.6% – if my house were going to burn 500 times, that one extra time it helped me live would not be worth $7,000. If the cost were $1500 or below, the benefit might equate to the cost, but to anyone other than an insurance company or fireman, neither of whom is footing this bill, it’s nuts.
Brandon
Brandon September 28, 2011 at 9:28 am
I understand where you come from but think of it this way, that 7 grand will almost always ensure that your house will not completely burn down. fire fighters don’t just show up and wave a wand to put out the fire. It doesnt just save your life it saves your house. Fighting the fire takes time and once a truss is exposed to flame they last about 5 minutes.
Rob
Rob November 16, 2011 at 1:00 pm
The only thing this will accomplish is added expense to a build and another system that will eventually fail and cause damage. Mold, mildew, and water damage are now much more likely in new homes. Fire alarms (already mandatory) will allow people to exit if there is a fire and fire insurance is already there (and still necessary despite this) to cover the damage to a structure. This is an incredibly ridiculous requirement that will only further drive up the cost of buying and maintaining a house with minimal (if any) safety gain to the occupants. There are undeniable cost consequences to the homeowner when it breaks or goes off unnecessarily at some point. I’m sure ServPro and ServiceMaster are cheering this requirement all the way to the bank.
Susan
Susan December 28, 2013 at 11:11 am
I have to come down on the side of Sean – and yes I have a vested interest as we are in new construction. We are safety conscious, building a house of insulated concrete foam construction and using fiber cement siding, but the sprinklers really are a perfect example of diminishing returns and the cost is not justified given the .2% increase in safety. This to me is simply an example of special interests successfully lobbying for a mandate that insures their business success.