Home Fire Sprinkler Question Sparks Debate
WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS (WGGB) — It’s been part of the International Code Council’s residential code since 2009, but so far Massachusetts has declined to adopt it: legislation requiring that newly-constructed homes include fire extinguishing sprinklers in the blueprint.
Not surprisingly, more and more fire chiefs and other officials are voicing their displeasure, including several in western Massachusetts. One of them is Longmeadow fire chief Eric Madison.
“It’s like having a firefighter in your home,” the chief says, pointing out that residential fires can double in size each minute, meaning even with a quick fire department response time of, say, four minutes, so much is lost that otherwise might be saved by sprinklers. Moreover, the chief reminds that smoke detectors – which don’t do anything to extinguish a fire – were deemed legally necessary long ago.
Nevertheless, the idea of mandating sprinklers has its share of detractors, builders perhaps foremost among them. Nick Riley of N. Riley Construction in Chicopee isn’t swayed entirely either way, but he asserts, there are inherent problems in forcing the issue.
“It could make a home less affordable for the average home buyer,” Riley says, indicating that the added cost to a typical home is between $10,000 and $15,000. “It could also do more damage than good,” he says, implying that sprinkler misfires do happen, and can cause their share of destruction.
But Chief Madison is firm in his stance, asserting that with the size and opulence of many new homes in recent years, people should consider a little less finery and square footage in favor of the means to preserve them.
“We should start prioritizing our building by protecting the occupants in the building, and then go to the luxury items.”
As for those ‘false alarm’ misfires, Chief Madison goes on to say fire sprinkler technology has come a long way.
“Residential fire sprinklers don’t operate the way they do in Hollywood,” he contends, “A fire sprinkler is only activated when activated by heat”. The chief continues, “If you have a fire in the living room of your home, the sprinklers in the bedroom aren’t going to be going off and creating excessive water damage.” Perhaps most concisely and cogently, he says “Quite frankly, nobody’s ever died from a sprinkler head going off; a lot of people die every year from fires”.
Chief Madison, like many of his peers, reasons that we build and fill our houses with combustible materials and items, yet while we legislate seatbelt and cell phone usage in cars, we do nothing to mandate what he says is an undeniable savior of property and lives. He even specifically notes recent fatal fires in the region, including the Christmas Day blaze that leveled a Stamford, Conn. home and killed five family members.
“I feel pretty safe in saying, yeah, there’s a pretty good chance those people would still be alive if there were residential fire sprinklers in their homes.”
Nick Riley isn’t throwing water on the chief’s arguments, but he is concerned that, while a state can take up International Residential Code requirements, there are still variables that could generate confusion among municipalities.
“Right now we have a Massachusetts building code that’s across-the-board, and I think when you start making gray areas, that leaves room for misinterpretations,” Riley warns.
“Does this law then move toward remodeling, and when you do a kitchen, do you then have to install sprinklers throughout your entire home?,” he asks rhetorically.
There’s also the freedom-of-choice issue. Riley says he’s not only open to discussion, he’d like very much to see further study done before any firm legal stance is established. But until then, he thinks the choice should be private … and individual.
“Maybe that’s something I decide, when I build a home, to install sprinkler systems, but am I forced to? I don’t know if that should be done.”
No comments:
Post a Comment