Posted by Dennis Herrick on January 04, 2010 at 09:34:24:
Foes: New NH sprinkler rule all wet
By TOM FAHEY
State House Bureau Chief
8 hours, 24 minutes ago
CONCORD – The state board that oversees building codes voted Dec. 11 to require sprinkler systems in every new home starting in 2012, but debate on the idea is not over.
Two bills in the Legislature this year would bar the state from enforcing the vote by the Building Code Review Board. One of them also would block cities and towns from enacting sprinkler rules or from enforcing existing requirements.
Donald Bliss, chairman of the BCRB, said the panel set April 2012 as an effective date to give builders, plumbers and others time to train, for one thing.
"Having a breathing period for people to calm down a little and sort through it is not a bad idea either," Bliss said.
Estimates are that the systems will cost about $3,200 for a 2,000 square foot house. The National Fire Protection Association puts the cost at between 1 and 1.5 percent of a home's construction costs.
Rep. Susi Nord, D-Candia, is the prime sponsor of HB 1486, banning municipal and state government sprinkler rules. She is co-sponsor of a second bill, which bars the state from requiring them in single- and multi-family homes.
"My intent is not to have the state tell local people what to do on this topic. There is an unbelievable amount of cost this will add for people," she said. "I'm concerned about the cost of housing."
She noted that the systems require separate water supplies, extra plumbing and installation expense.
Rep. Warren Groen, R-Rochester, co-sponsor on HB 1191, said the building code change, "is just wild overreach on the part of state government."
He and his brother, partners in a home-building business, joined other contractors to fight a similar rule at city hall in Rochester.
"What I said to them was, if people want to buy a sprinkler system, feel free. Let the market decide who has them. Government shouldn't decide," he said.
New Hampshire Homebuilder and Remodelers Association Executive Director Kendall Buck has argued that smoke alarms are a cost-effective alternative.
He said in September that from 2001 to 2004, only 12 percent of fatal fires occurred in buildings that had operating smoke alarms.
State Fire Marshal William Degnan supports the sprinkler code, and said he will testify against the bills at public hearings Jan. 7.
"I know these things are proper and therefore I'm going to be promoting them. What it boils down to is these things save lives," he said. "We have no financial interest in this. Our role as government officials is to look at what's best for the public."
National Fire Sprinkler Association President Joseph Viniello said sprinklers are a proven success in 30 years of use in commercial buildings.
He noted the systems are endorsed by the National Fire Protection Association.
"It's like having a fireman on duty in your house 24 hours day," he said.
Viniello said the two House bills, "would be a giant step backward" for fire safety.
The cost of sprinklers is equivalent to the cost of granite counter tops or a carpeting upgrade, he said.
He and Degnan both noted that the construction industry's shift toward lightweight materials gives sprinklers another edge over smoke alarms.
The new materials burn through quickly, Degnan said, which poses serious danger to residents trying to escape, and to firefighters who need to enter a burning house.
Viniello said four states have adopted the home sprinkler requirements in the national code -- New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Delaware. California is expected to adopt them within the next two months, he said.
Nord said she thinks the idea is moving too fast for New Hampshire.
She said she voted to require sprinklers in an elderly housing development in Candia while she served on the local planning board.
"That may seem hypocritical now, to sponsor a bill to bar them," she said. Her main intent was to get a bill before the Legislature.
"I think it's a discussion we need to have," she said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Comments:
@Mark in Epsom,
No Mark, the regular domestic water system of the house ISN'T as prone to freezing as the fire sprinkler system'pipe network is, despite what a non-sprinkler owner might at first think.
The reason this is so is that most all of the domestic water system's pipes are in the floor, basement, or interior walls. Of necessity, sprinkler pipes are often in the ceiling, near the attic, and/or running to far-flung rooms at the end of the house that bathroom and kitchen water pipes would never have to run to. As well, there is FAR more sprinkler pipe, in terms of shear length, than there is for domestic water service.
Experience in my neighborhood with over 100+ sprinklered, free-standing houses, says the sprinkler pipes freeze FAR MORE OFTEN than the ordinary water pipes do.
At our house, the domestic water system is fed through a 3/4 inch service pipe that is slowed down by its trip through the town's water meter. The sprinkler system, on the other hand, comes off of a MUCH LARGER pipe (1 1/2 or 2 inches I think) that is UPSTREAM of the meter....meaning that the sprinkler dumps MUCH MORE water FAR FASTER than any frozen toilet feed ever would.
Trust me, I know about this.
Lastly, it's interesting to read all of these reader comments, as I have yet to see even ONE sprinkler system owner speak in the affirmative for a mandatory requirement for these systems.....Hmmmm.
- Stephen Beltramini, Walpole, MA
Like many other things in life if you do it right the first time it works great. The argument about the pipes bursting is clear evidence that the system was not installed correctly. Easily fixed by making sure its installed by a reputable builder - same goes for electrical and plumbing - which also have required codes to meet.
A sprinkler system will save your life - or perhaps the life of someone you love. Most of us will never need one but when you do you'll be glad you had it. The problem is when you need it and do not have it then its too late.
It's a simple solution to a potentially terrible problem. Go ask someone who's been through a fire and see how they feel about them. If I remember correctly there has never been a fire related death in a fully sprinkled building in the US.
And for the record - I am not a firefighter - I'm just someone who likes reducing the ways my family can be accidentally killed if it's available.
- Chris, Nashua
@Roger in Rochester,
I hear what you're saying, but you haven't lived through the floods and destroyed interiors that several of my family's neighbors have. (Read my comment below.) These sprinkler systems fail, and fail OFTEN in cold weather. Don't let proponents tell you otherwise. People in my development overwhelmingly would vote to tear the sprinklers out if we could. Even these lower cost residential sprinkler systems dump a considerable amount of water when they break. If you aren't home to immediately shut off the water when the flow alarm goes off, you are going to be really sorry. Even when neighbors have been home, even a couple of minutes of water running has trashed several rooms, walls, ceilings, floors, with mold, rot, mildew, etc. The insurance companies here will NOT pay for the water damage nor will they discuss deactivation of the systems even for part of the year. All they do is pass the blame to the builder. Several of my neighbors and the homeowner's association have been to court to NO avail. It's spelled G R I E F, trust me.
I myself like the idea of a sprinkler system. My primary heat is a wood stove (a masonry heater actually) and I had a cousin almost lose her kid in The Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island a few years back (she *barely* made it out the door, her friend did not.) Given all that, I should LOVE sprinklers, but I have to tell you, given all the fire engines in my neighborhood over the years, all the worry about water damage, the space heater we have to keep running in a distant room of the house, how we barely dare to go away for any time at all during the winter (we thought about the house a LOT when visiting relatives in California last Christmas) I wish I could turn my system off, at least to the exterior rooms in the winter, but I am instead a prisoner to this sprinkler system.
Roger, you just don't know how much trouble these things really are, or how proponents of sprinklers LIE about the winter headaches the systems suffer. Ask me or anybody in our neighborhood. They DO lie, constantly telling us "It won't freeze any more....No need to worry anymore" ........Ya, sure.
And... we're on town water. If you're on your own well, well, good luck with THAT!
And if you get another major ice storm......well....lot'sa luck with that.
NH residents, do yourself a favor, vote NO, NO, NO, NO! on this!
- Stephen Beltramini, Walpole, MA
This might not be a bad idea. It would be difficult for the Fire Departments to continue their scare tactic of needing a fire house on every corner. The tax savings might be worth the investment
- Mr A, Hooksett
I laugh at the cost for the system.. It costed me $6500 for a 2100 Sq Foot home 2 years ago and i got 3 estimates and that was the cheapest.. Also maintenance cost... Every few years they say you must change out the Anti-freeze in the lines if there exposed to the cold elements which cost another $3 - $500..
Now if you have a nice (Lets say tiny) leak, it damages your ceiling very nicely.. Who pays for that?? Obviously the homeowner that don't want to put in another claim in his/her policy.. I also have a leak now in one of the joints in the basement.. Too much to have fixed so I shut the breaker off so it wont pressure the system back up..
- Jk, Weare
Sam in Manchester,
If my decision not to have sprinklers in my home has consequences, including death from home fire, then so be it. That is MY decision, not yours, and cetainly not the governments.
- Paul, Merrimack
Sam in Manchester
People are broke
Mortgages are higher than the property value
The Government is stupid
- Bob, Salem
I am in favor or the sprinkler requirement. Keep in mind this is for new construction not every house, second if the sprinkler system freezes don't you think the other piping in your house will freeze too? Ultimately sprinklers will help to control the growth of the fire department and ultimately save tax payers money. If anyone has ever seen a system work you will see it is really like having a firefighter in every room. I can believe the sponsor of the bill is from Candia, didn't they just have a fatal fire across from the fire station?
- Mark, Epsom
This is easy. Obviously fire insurance savings would be significant. What else? How much does it cost for the fire department to show up and put out a basic fire, say one room threatening an attic? Cost savings to towns would be significant too, and might be expressed as a tax rebate for sprinklered homes. And lives would no doubt be saved, of course this never matters to the goofy libertarians.
On the other hand it would be a giant slam to the liberty of people like "Deb in Derry," who probably has ZERO intent to buy a new house, and no doubt LOVES to scream about fire department costs every chance she gets. GOP Koolaid does funny things to people. Lol.
- Roger, Rochester
Would every system running from a well also require its own back up generator so that if there were a fire during a power outage the pump would have power to function?
- Sandra, Bradford
I live in a condo, next to a foreclosed unit. We have sprinkler systems. Guess what? The heat was turned off in the unit and the sprinkler pipe broke last January. Guess who's house also got flooded because of it?
Guess who is leary of leaving on vacation in the winter? If I could tear out my sprinkler system I would!
Just what we need, more nanny state control of our lives. Go NH!
- CHERYL, HAMPTON
I support residential sprinklers.
I do not support a mandate with such far-reaching impact being imposed as part of the administrative rulemaking process by an unelected board.
The Legislature needs to take this sort of decision back, so that such regulations have at least the veneer of democratic legitimacy.
- Rich, Manchester
My parents live in a development in MA that has sprinklers and what trouble it has been. DESPITE what's supposed to be good insulation, many units have had severe water damage after freezing temperatures have ruptured sprinkler pipes. Even though the sprinklers were not required by the Town, the builder put them in, but now the insurance companies nor the fire department will allow the sprinklers to be removed. Of course, the insurance companies have not paid for water damage, saying that that's the builder's fault. These systems have actually LOWERED resale value too due to all the hassle.
People continue to live in fear of cold weather. My parents keep a space heater going in the bedroom over the garage for extra heat in that cold room for sprinkler pipe protection, ironically INCREASING the fire danger.
In a dormitory of a newly built, residential school nearby, they had to close the building for a month and renovate after a sprinkler pipe frooze there too. Now these are special needs kids, and I support sprinkler systems there despite the freeze issue. Still, it just goes to show that these systems are not the low-cost, trouble-free things proponents show them to be.
Just say NO, NO, NO! to mandatory sprinkler systems.
- Stephen Beltramini, Walpole, MA
You know what is SO funny about reading all these discussions? The ones yelling the loudest about this is outrageous and live free or die BS live in towns where the Fire Department is a joke and havn't saved a home in a hundred years. Go ahead, oppose this bill. Jump up and down and call the ACLU, be my guest. Most of you have FD's that have declining membership, cant get fire trucks out the door in the middle of the day because of the lack of help, incompetent Chiefs and Firefighters who lack the common knowledge to save their own lives, let alone yours or your families. But you go ahead, complain, scream, make accusations, blah, blah, blah. BUT remember, when your standing there, watching your life go up in smoke, waiting for 20 minutes for your volunteers to arrive, Dont moan and complain because you already did that for a bill that would have saved your house and maybe your lives
- Sam, Manchester
Do you think that every potential homeowner can afford to pressurized their individual water system to be able to have a sprinkler system in their home. This is not a cost effective method and will not improve fire safety in the home. A good smoke detector will do the necessary job of protecting occupants in the home. Just another government intrusion and big brother mentality. Who is looking to make money off the sprinkler systems and add a tremendous amount of money to the home purchaser.
- Joan, Pittsfield
This is just one more example those who know what is best costing us more money. I would like to keep my liberty to choose for myself since I'm not lighting my home with torches.
Every home must have sprinklers, give me a break! How much freshly printed stimuless money will be siphoned off into this so some of us can pay for the sprinklers of others?
- Deb, Derry
And for those of us that are not on public water the cost is ??? separate well, well pump and holding tank, separate water pump assembly to pump the water into the house, separate power service (first thing that is cut at a house fire is the service to the house) separate generator to power the pumps during power outage (a regular occurance in NH). Let alone regular maintenance costs, and you have just priced everyone out of a home (also inspection costs, almost forgot)
- Jeff, Windham
Art, Portsmouth et.al. kudos that you have sprinklers installed - you are on municipal water supply - makes it easier. But the bottom line is that it is a personal choice and it is your personal property. You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine - and neither of us is wrong - I know that is anathema to a liberal - but that's the way it is. And to the fireman who is 100% certain all lives could have been saved with sprinklers I can only say, you're not God - and NOBODY can be 100% certain of anything.
We need to get government out of our lives and stop the continual encroachment on our liberties.
- Sandy, Thornton
a sprikler system is like having a fireman on duty 24/7...then a security alarm must be like having a police officer on duty 24/7...then a tutor would be like having a teacher on duty...great, will all of these, i guess i wouldn't have to pay anymore taxes!?!?!
follow the money...i would imagine the pipe fitters union is a big supporter of some of these hacks!?!
- unionrepublican, bedford
I wouldn’t want all that water in my ceilings even if the system was free. Mandating fire resistant building materials is a better way to go. If you aren't going to respect personal freedom, at least give people a choice between the 2 options, rather than create a new guild powerhouse out of sprinkler installers!
FYI – a lot of people appear to be reading the article wrong. The sprinkler mandate is originating from Town boards (usually as an anti-development measure) and the State Fire Marshal bureau-crazy. The legislature (D & R) is opposing it:
Bad guys:
State Fire Marshal William Degnan
John Viniello, National Fire Sprinkler Association President
Good guys:
Rep. Susi Nord, D-Candia
Rep. Warren Groen, R-Rochester
Kendall Buck, Homebuilder and Remodelers Association Executive Director
- Jim, Manchester, Ward 9
What happens when we get hit with another ice storm, and many hundreds or thousands of homes have no heat and all of these water filled pipes in your ceilings freeze and burst? What then?
Its likely to happen.
- CJ, Deerfield, NH
For any who are not familiar but want to get a message to a representative or a commitee handling a bill:
Go to www.nh.gov.
Go to Government. Go to State Government/Legislative Branch. You can use the bill tracking system to find a bill by number (as shown in the article) and review its text, status and scheduled next hearing - as well as what committee it's assigned to.
You can learn who your own rep is and get an email address - or that of a sponsoring rep or senator; learn who is on the commitee and how to contact them.
Keep it short and on point; stay away from political rhetoric (they're immune and it detracts from the on-point message). I'd suggest the subject line be simple, like "Why I support/oppose HB 1234."
As a rule, an email is not written testimony, even if it gets read. A written letter is. But you write the email, you've already written the letter, right? Print and put on a stamp on it.
Or make it look good - cut and paste onto your personal letterhead - doesn't have to be too fancy.
Oh, and never assume any/everybody else will speak up for you.
- RP, New Boston
Sam, Derry - funny you mentions those:
"Carpets can burn, so no carpets allowed"
All carpets must pass federal flammability tests.
"Beds can burn, so no beds allowed"
All beds and bedding must pass federal flammability tests.
"Gasoline can burn, so no garages or cars allowed"
By national building code, all garages must be separated by a firewall from the dwelling unit
"Stairs are very dangerous, so no stairs allowed"
Railings, the height of railings, the rise/run of the treads are all part of the national building code.
"Falls are one of the most common injuries in the home"
Obstructions which may trip homeowners (think fireplace hearth) must be eliminated. Railings are required on stairs, tempered glass is required on low installed windows. Front screen doors must be plexiglas, not glass - All these are part of the national building code
Surprise!
- Art, Portsmouth
Rep. Nord is quoted as saying she is proposing HB1486 because she doesn't want the State dictating to the local communities and because "There is an unbelievable amount of cost this will add". This seems ridiculous in light of the 150+/- tax increases the Democrats passed last year to "balance the budget". Apparently these tax increases have no impact on her constitutents nor is the State mandating anything to the local communities. If she wants to save her constitutents some money, repeal all the tax increases and then lets talk.
- Tom, Hooksett
Another BS issue to rile people up. I like all the sarcastic comments like fire safety is the most ridiculous thing out there. Who cried when we couldn't use asbestos anymore? Who cried when there was no more lead paint? Who's crying now? No wait, give me my asbestos and my lead paint and how about no smoke detectors too, live free or die compells us to do so.
- J Paige, Manchester
Texter, Newfields- am I to believe that because houses are already expensive we should not worry about adding another 2% or 3% to the costs? Some of your explanation is sound reasoning for why prices increased rapidly but that does not justify raising them even more.
I have been very involved with several municipalities (especially in Florida) and their adding of inane code changes; trust me their is no need for the code books to be INCHES thick. The code congress, local and state governments have absolutely no understanding of "cause and effect" but instead base their changes on the ridiculous belief that "if it saves just one life it is worth it". If we were governed under this same tenant from all sides, and at times it seems like we are headed there, then we would be living a pretty pathetic life!
- Jesse, Orford
I would not trust a home sprinkler system, considering the number of incidents in commercial applications where the water damage far exceeded any fire damage. Then add the manical chopping of the fireman, and the house ends up a total loss.
So I would imagine insurance premiums could get a discount for the sprinkler system, but they'll raise the preimium anyways due to the collateral water damage.
Plus the cost of extra water lines, meters, piping, fixtures. The place will look like the 3-Stooges Plumbing.
- john, goffstown
Live free or Die. LOL........looks like most of you are staring at the later part of that ancient quote.
- Jake, Manchester
Maybe the state should also ban smoking on the same bill. Would this not save lives and also reduce the number of fatal fires caused by smoking? I don't believe that the state would have the courage to fight that battle even though many more lives would be saved.
- Rich, Barrington, NH
Just a point of interest. The Review Board was not unanimous in keeping this requirement in the code. The vote was 8 to 4 against limiting the requirements for srinklers.
From public testimony, even the NH Fire Prevention Society offered amendments to delete one and two family residences from the requirements, but have the guidelines available for local towns that voted to have such a requirement.
Rep Nord's bill to limit the power of the State Building Review Board for a statewide mandatory sprinkler regulation is a good compromise to ensure freedom of choice at the local level.
Also, don't forget that your voice counts. Remeber to send a letter to Rep Nord stating your support for this bill or, if you can, contact you representative. Time is of the essence as the hearing on this bill is next Tuesday.
- Bill, Candia
To: John Edward Mercier, Belmont
You were alleging some unique failure potential of automatic sprinklers. Yes, the system is filled with water and subject to freezing, just as all the existing plumbing in a house. There is no increase risk of water damage due to automatic sprinklers. In fact, most have at least a local alarm to indicate waterflow. Does your domestic water system have the same or can it leak, undetected, indefinitely?
I’m against the mandate but water damage is a poor argument against automatic sprinklers. Especially when the only people who can complain about water damage are those who still have a house instead of a pile of burning rubble!
- Ralph, Amherst
After requiring sprinklers, let's not stop there! Carpets can burn, so no carpets allowed. Beds can burn, so no beds allowed. Gasoline can burn, so no garages or cars allowed. Stairs are very dangerous, so no stairs allowed. Falls are one of the most common injuries in the home, so no standing allowed - only crawling on hands and knees. Oh, yes, and wrapped in foam rubber cushions at all times to protect against all other bumps and bruises - but wait, foam rubber can burn - oh darn. I'm sure glad I have smart legislators trying to keep me safe.
Here's the answer. Ignore party affiliation. It no longer matters. Vote out all incumbents for as long as it takes.
- Sam, Derry
So, living outside an area with no public water supply will require two wells??? Sounds like Concord is again reaching too far! I would suggest anyone building a new home should make the decision, not some board in Concord that would establish a whole new set of rules, regualtions and COST!
- Paul Ryan, Wolfeboro
Sniff, sniff. I smell a new division within the fire department where they will go to people's homes every year to do an inspection.
- Jim D, Hillsboro
I can't believe how far we have let government rule our lives.
They'll be outlawing my woodstove before you know it.
- Annie, Henniiker
Since this sprinkler system will equate to having a fireman in every home, then I am sure this new legislation will also exempt home owners of new homes from taxes to pay for the fire departments and these other bureacrats. I bet you a wooden nickle that these home owners will have to pick up a seperate home owners policy to cover flood damage in case one of these sprinklers malfunctions. Nanny state government at its best once again...
- Kyle, Bedford
I voluntarily installed a sprinkler system in my home when I had it built in 2002. I am in favor of requiring them, but only for 2+ family homes and only if there is a municipal water supply available. We can start there and grow it in future years.
The cost for ours was closer to 3%, which is typical when you have a multi-story building and have a well, which requires a small pump and a storage tank (300 gal tank - size of oil tank).
There is no increase in insurance premiums, we actually get a discount of 10% off comprehensive.
- Art, Portsmouth
Spike misses the boat again.
As he mentions safer aplliances, electronic detection and other advances in fire safety, he fails to see that all these improvements were legislated and regulated with safety in mind. Now, he takes them for granted while openly admitting that the desired safety increase has taken place and benefitted all.
The risk of frozen pipes in an occupied structure during a power outage is extremely minimal in a power outage if the homeowner takes the proper action.
The cost of the system can be realized in insurance savings in a reasonable period of time.
This only effects new construction and noone is being forced to retrofit their property. Building codes are a proven necessity and there is a great deal of data to support building new homes with sprinkler systems. This has been done for electrical systems, heating systems, plumbing and structural components for years and we are all better for it. I would bet that the vast majority of the complainers in this forum would be impacted by this bill at all.
- Jules, Manchester
If the proposed fire and Building Codes are not STOPPED...... Something to consider is the real cost to consumers. Will there be additional sprinkler inspections required periodically and at what cost? Estimates I have been told by people who have these systems are much higher than $3500 and even higher where public water isn't available. One more issue of several others is if the State Fire and Building codes are allowed to be changed, local building inspectors will have to enforce these codes and it will be at the discression of the inspectors to force even older homes going through renovations that pull a building permit, to comply with the new laws. It's not just new homes that are included in this bill. Where do the plummers stand on this issue? How about the code enforcment book publishers? Etc... It's a bad bill that's not ready for prime time. Is it true that you have a 99% chance of surviving a fire with a sprinkler system and a 98.5% rate of survival without one? Voice your concerns to your Legislators as well as to the UL.
- John Hikel, Goffstown
I'm 24 years old and just bought my first two family. And all these new rules and requirement added each and every year are really starting to worry my. What's it going to be like twenty years from now. What is happening to our freedom of choice. We are losing all our rights one by one. Doesn't anyone care? Think about the younger generations that wont have anymore freedom. I can see how sprinklers would be good but I don't agree with requiring them. Housing is getting more unafordable every year because of all of this stuff. I'm just thankful for the recession otherwise I would not have been able to buy a place.
- jason, manchester
Hi Tom/Candia,
I did read the article. One of the co-sponsors is a Dem, the other GOP. Also, the BCRB is composed of political appointees, appointed by you-know-who.
- Tom, Campton
To all of you supporters of this ridiculous bill, look at the statistics direct from your oh so loved FEMA website. Nationwide.... according to how much you all want Government to control our lives... looks like we should pass some laws to prevent cooking, heating and children playing in the house so as we can make the most of "Safety".
If you support this bill move to Russia ... they like to tell you what to do there. Whatever happened to live free or die... oh yeah you people elected Jeanne Shaheen! I sure didnt...
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/residential.shtm
Incendiary, Suspicious 5.7%
Children Playing 0.4%
Smoking 2.1%
Heating 11.4%
Cooking 26.4%
- Steven, Manchester
There are a few readers that have misunderstood the article Your legislaturers have two bills that will STOP the requirement of sprinklers. They are protecting your rights. The Building Code Review Board led by Don Bliss are the ones trying to make sprinklers happen.
What about the home that has well water with only 3 gallon a minute output surely that is not good enough even for a lawn sprinkler system.
I have a 1500 square foot commercial building with thirteen sprinkler heads and a two inch municipal water line was the bare minimum. I would suspect a house would need more then thirteen sprinklers coming from a 3/4 water supply seems like taking a squirt gun to a firefight. Never mind the 2008 ice storm and loosing electricity for eight days that would translate into millions and millions of dollars in loses from broken pipes and water damage.
- Steve, Seabrook
In theory, good ideas can have practical flaws - some of which have been mentioned in these comments. I have investigated fire losses for insurance companies since the 1970s and I would suggest the state back waaay off on this one.
In addition to the cost, maintenance and associated issues raised, as well as over-intrusion by government, consider:
- The concept of spinkler fire suppression was designed for high occupancy/use scenarios and to enhance escape possibilities as well as inhibit a fire's spread until hands-on suppression can occur.
- These systems are not fail-safe for "false alarm" activation. Think about your personal property being soaked over an "Oops."
- On average, correct me if I'm wrong, the US averages under 4,000 fire deaths a year. Find out the full facts as to how many would have been saved with a sprinkler system - but had active smoke alarms. Find out how much of this is manufacturer and service provider hype - with the sales work being done by, assuredly well-meaning, fire fighters.
The practical flaws are huge, the benefits may not be. Back off and make sure all the facts are presented and considered.
And I disagree, this is not one for local government which may not have the resources to get the whole picture.
- RP, New Boston
Jesse, Orford -- In the recent past the cost of new housing outpaced the ability of the average Joe to pay for it due to a number of factors, primarily the availability of cheap money brought about by poorly regulated securitization of mortgages, which artificially fueled demand for land, lumber and labor.
When you have bidding wars for land to build houses, the market gets what the market will bear. If growth over the past decade had proceeded at a 'normal' pace, then I argue the prices of land and houses would have risen at a more reasonable rate. I purchased my house in 1996, just as the bottom of the Savings and Loan debacle was being hit. The previous owner had paid far to much for it, and I reaped the benefit of their folly. It seems that we learned nothing from history, and are repeating it again.
What other 'idiotic ideas' would you have removed from the building codes? Height restrictions, electrical requirements, properly sized egress windows?
- Texter, Newfields
Ralph, Amherst...
Forced hot water has a long history also... but when homes go days without electricity... that is when damage is most likely to have occured.
- John Edward Mercier, Belmont
If the legislature would spend some time balancing the state budget by reducing the number of bureaucrats that think up this socialist garbage, we would all be better off. This is just another way of increasing our tax load at the local level with more and more overhead to consume. Take a look at where the money trail leads.
- Ted Ryll, Winchester
Tom/Campton:
"Asinine.
In November, I will be voting for candidates who will repeal what the Democrats have done the past two years.
What will you be voting for?"
What's even more asinine is your (and other hacks') knee-jerk reaction :)
If you bothered to read the article you might have noticed that at least one of the bills reversing this rule is a Democratic-sponsored bill.
- tom, candia
To say this is assinine is to be kind! The Building Code "boards" should be ashamed of themselves for pushing more and more of these left field ideas all in the name of "safety" at all costs. It is no wonder that the cost of a new home is out pacing the ability of the buyer to come up with the money to make a purchase.
Removing idiotic ideas from the code book and eliminating the approval of ideas such as these would make far more houses avaiable to average Joe's. As usual the government gets in its own way; touting the need for affordable housing at the same time they increase the costs of an average home!
- Jesse, Orford
I built a house in Derry back in 2000-01 and the town made me add a sprinkler system to the house because the developer would not install a cistern. The cost back then was $5000.00 or $5500.00
I think this is another way the government is dictating our lives and it needs to stop.
- Mike, Lakes Region
Nice to see government yet once again step in as to how people should live...time to find my copy of the book "1984"
- mike, epping
Good move for the supplier and bad move for the public. The cost is grossly underrated. And it is underrated for the reason to make it sound not all that bad. The true cost is in the 7,000 range, depending on the size of the storage tank in the basement, not to mention the mold that will be growing due to the moisture. Take a look at what Hooksett and Dover went through in the middle to late 90’s.
Some body got there pockets lined, this has nothing to do with helping the Fire Dept.’s. Due to the millions of buildings that the Firefighters have to deal with on a daily basis.
- John, Candia
Why are they targeting new houses? Most of the fires in NH are in older homes.
- Tom, Portsmouth
Home fires are a declining risk, because of safer appliances and less use of open fires, and with declining consequences, because of electronic detection and reporting.
The legislature needs not just to overturn this bit of dictatorship, but confront the "Safety First" mentality that says that anything that fights fires is good, that it should be mandated under threat of armed force with no study of costs and consequences, and to believe otherwise is to be against our "first responders." The mentality that dictates sprinklers for new homes is capable of dictating retrofit for your home.
When politicians and citizen witnesses at legislative hearings abandon wise decisions in favor of acts that show they are on the right side of an issue, this is what you get.
- Spike, Brentwood NH
Live Free or Die
Does the individual homeowner have the right to put in sprinklers? Yes as well they should have the right to not install,if they should so decide.
- Harold, North Woodstock, NH
Asinine.
In November, I will be voting for candidates who will repeal what the Democrats have done the past two years.
What will you be voting for?
- Tom, Campton
What do you do when your Fire Chief is a big proponent of residential sprinklers and you discover that his son is running a sprinkler installation business? This is the case in a neighboring town. Please Fire Marshall Degnan, don't insult us with your "what's best for the public." defense.
My guess is, this is being done for banks and insurance companies under the guise of public safety.
These bills don't go far enough! We need Home Rule in NH. No, not for our cities and towns. Give us back our private property rights!
- Dennis Herrick, East Hampstead
I fully understand the arguments on both sides of this issue. The only question I have for all of those who claim this regulation must happen is how many of you currently have sprinklers in your homes now? If you don't and you support this then why don't you have them in your home if this is such a "must have" regulation?
- Carl Daniels, Alton
Come visit northern NH where there are small towns with most folks living outside the town center in single homes with private water supplies. Drilling a well through the granite, putting in a pump house, generator, storage tank, and a sprinkler system is cost prohibitive. Factor in below freezing temperatures in winter. Consider manufactured housing units on small plots of land. This Code is makes no sense.
- John, Lyman
"We have no financial interest in this. Our role as government officials is to look at what's best for the public."
Thanks you for your concern, but I am fully capable of deciding for myself what is best for me. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with government. I don't need anymore nannies looking over my shoulder
- Paul, Merrimack
Another plan by the government to take over another aspect of life remember you all voted for them.
- Mike, Manchester
Since sprinklers will cut down on the need for fire departments, perhaps Marshal Degan would support allocating some of his budget to pay for sprinkler systems in new homes.
NH 2010 is starting to look a lot like MA 1987.
The other three states that have adopted these rules do not have a majority of their homes on private water systems (wells).
- Mike, Bedford
Does the State realize what this is going to do for new building construction in rural NH?
It's going to kill it..
Most wells will not support the water demand for these sprinkler systems. They will have to build cisterns which can provide the required amount of water.
In the city, what about the water/sewer bill the building owner receives if your sprinkler system does go off?
I am sure theses systems dump hundreds (if not thousands) of gallons of water in a short amount of time....
Does this mean that each new building will also be required to have a fire alarm system to notify the fore department if it goes off?
Who is going to pay the expense for installing/monitoring this?
The owner, of course.....
- Scott, Manchester
Earth calling Chuck the court Chester. Nord is a Democrat. At least get your hatred pointed in the "right" direction.
- Robert, Deerfield
Having responded to fires in single family and multi family homes for 25 years I can tell you this much, with 100% certainty. The people I saw dead and seriously injured would not have died or been as badly injured, if those homes had been sprinkled.
- Bob, Manchester
Since when does an unelected board of glorified code enforcers have the power to dictate state law and enact requirements on your new home? These people have over-reached their power. Even the People's Republic of California hasn't enacted this insanity!!! Live free or die!
- Brie, FL
Wether you are in support of spinklers or not, the bill that blocks cities and towns from enacting their own regulations is to opposite extreme and totally against the concept of local rule. The state should not be in the business of telling local communities what they can't do to protect their citizens. Let the sprinkler bill go through the process, but to say that a community CAN NOT do something like this on their own is ridiculous.
Before you start complaining about separate water supplies, you need to realize that all that is required is a few hundred gallons of water supply. How big is your oil tank?
- Tom, Laconia
Reducing fire department budgets after this passes is a great idea. Then you can all add that money to your respective education budgets for remedial English classes; there vs their, your vs you're, days vs day's, etc. I am also glad to see so many sprinkler experts chiming in who are all so well informed on the differences between commercial and residential sprinklers and cost estimating.
- Scott, CT
While I am not sure the state should require them, NFPA 13D residential sprinkler systems do not require separate water supplies and are typically integrated into a home's cold water supply system. They can also be plumbed with inexpensive PEX tubing, are not required in unheated attic or garage spaces and have no required fire department monitoring or annual inspections or maintenance requirements. Adding a 13D system to a new house would easily be paid for in lower insurance premiums within 10 years.
- David, Hopkinton
In Peterborough people were forced to put in Sprinklers for a while and the cost was $8,000 to $10,000 for those people that did not $3,500. The argument that it doesn't hurt financially is also a lie. You have national statistics that show 8/10ths of a death per million so with the average family 2 1/2 you would spend $3.2 Billion dollars to save one life at $8,000 per family. That's over a billion dollars even at the $3,500 unrealistic number.
- Tom Judd, wilton
Decisions like this are best left to our towns and cities. I'm a firm believer that the smallest body of government capable of handling an issue is the appropriate body to handle said issue. So, if a town can properly manage the rule, then the town should. If not, then perhaps the county, then the state then the federal government.
It seems to me that local communities could easily enact local code standards to require sprinklers in new construction.
I don't see why the state needs to get involved here. If the fire chief in Derry can make a convincing argument about why Derry should require new construction to have sprinklers, then the people of Derry would support it.
I am particularly disturbed by State Fire Marshal William Degnan's comment "Our role as government officials is to look at what's best for the public". What's next, a ham sandwich for everyone? Because right about now I can't think of anything that would be better for me.
- Jay, Derry
Folks, I am certainly in favor of having sprinklers in your house. I think that they do have the potential to save lives and reduce property damage when they are activated during a fire. However, I am not about to tell you that I am agreeable to the State of NH telling me that I have to have them.
Fire Marshall Degnan is spot on about one thing. "It's like having a firefighter on duty 24/7 in your house". Except in this case the firefighter doesn't sleep and comes fully prepared in a seconds notice. IF the State does mandate these I think they should also look at mandating some of the budgets and personnel of our area departments. Try regionilization or County based departments. Give everyone a tax break and don't spend millions apon millions of dollard EACH YEAR, reducing that tax burden on the public may have more incentive to get sprinklers in their houses. Don't just force this down our throats.
- Ben, Portsmouth
Ralph (Amherst) must be connected to the Sprinkler industry, his/your comments are right on. I have spoken w/Don Bliss on other Public Safety Issues and I think that his concerns are really abouot safety. Having said that, I will also be adding sprinklers to my building in the future. The reason is safety. The state needs to allow those who qualify (basicly following the codes) to install sprinklers and not just allow one trade to install them. Not to be repetative but if a home owner is on a well can their system be supplied the required water to be affective? Generally not without large quantities of storage and big pumps and now annual maintenance. I do believe that in towns were their are public/private water supplies that sprinklers should be required. The problem w/that is the size of the existing water mains could restrict certain business for establishing themselves becasue the upgrades to the system would be cost prohibative. Some privately owned systems (like the one in Nashua) would just rip out the existing system and install new piping and just pass the charges onto the rate payors. So the rate payors would pay for the expansion. Anyway it can get real complicated. Should sprinklers be installed? Absolutely. Can everyone be mandated in NH and have an effective system? Probably not. To wave a magic wand and mandate sprinklers sounds good but in all fairness it is probably not a good idea. But, I do believe Mr. Bliss should procede w/sprinklers in commercial buildings in towns w/water supply and all future water systems should be sized to allow sprinklers. I have studied about sprinklers and the codes. This is not a new industry like Ralph said its been around for over 100 years. The technolpgy is changing and the costs are being reduced but the problem is water supply to the system. The law probably needs more work.
- Michael King, Epping
Another example of government run amok. How is it that our representatives think they know better than we do? I wish that you could tell which one of the candidates were like that before the election. They all say that they will be our rep, but then go and do whatever it is that they think is best for us without regard for how we feel about it. This is going to come to a head some day.
- joe jesseman, Tilton
The folks here are absolutely right about the massive overstepping of boundaries to mandate the use of sprinklers. The cost is excessive and at a time when the real estate industry is already on the ropes, a disincentive to new construction is the last thing we need.
However, the greater point that we should be asking is how this panel, the "Building Code Review Board," got the authority to create such a mandate. The authority should be stripped immediately.
Finally, for his comment, State Fire Marshall William Degnan should be terminated. Today. The idea that the role of "government officials" is to undermine individuals' property rights shows a lack of understanding of our history and culture that is incompatible with him keeping his position.
- Glen, Manchester, NH
How much will property tax go down? We won't need as many firefighters so in the long run it should save money...
- Andy, Wentworth
"State Fire Marshal William Degnan supports the sprinkler code... I know these things are proper and therefore I'm going to be promoting them...Our role as government officials is to look at what's best for the public."
In a nutshell, another liberal elite deciding what's right for me, my family and my pocketbook on my private property whether I like it or not.
Time for this guy to go. Cliff Newton from Rochester - excellent idea!
- Sandy, Thornton
What happened to choice? Remeber the day's when the consumer got to decide what they wanted the builder to include in there home and what items they didn't want in there homes?
I agree if this passes we should be able to start reducing local fire departments as there work load should decrease and thus our tax's should decrease, but then again pigs will fly elephants will turn purple and big foot will come out of the woods.
- Josh, Manchester
What I find missing in many of these articles is just how or how much or how many lives will be saved by sprinklers. At a time when homes are built safer to begin with, and sprinklers are enacted, 10 years from now, sprinklers could easily get an inordinate amount of credit. It could well be all the other factors involved saving lives.
But from all the articles I read, I have no way of knowing. One legislator says they have no financial interest in this equation. They are trying to make things safer. Cost effectiveness is a great way to make things viable. If it is too costly and there are maintenance costs involved, it is a recipe for neglect. And any system neglected seldom fares as well as a properly maintained system.
My understanding is that the sprinklers activate at 160 degrees. If I were in the room and it was 158 degrees, how well am I doing at that point? I am already on my out or dead, or waiting for help to arrive or for the temperature to finally top out at over 160 degrees.
Yes, I will take any help at that point in time. I'm not saying that I do not want a sprinkler system at my disposal, should I get caught in a fire. My next home, that I am planning, I am looking at installing a sprinkler system. But I will be looking hard at costs and realities. Not just the saying that Sprinklers save lives.
- Robert McQueeney, Barrington
The estimate of $3200 is grossly underestimated, the cost will be much higher, not to mention extra insulation, maintenance, and the damage when the kids hit a head with a tennis ball or other object. Yes, these systems save lives, but it should be the choice of the homeowner as to whther the large extra cost is worth it!!!!
Outlawing woodstoves would save many more lives but that is also ridiculous to suggest!!!
How far do we go to protect ourselves???
- Jack, Concord
Brian in Farmington -
We aren't talking about the merits or desirability of residential sprinkler systems. This is more about the role of government in mandating you install them. Your argument appears to be: "lives will be saved so we must do it"
All I have to ask you is, "where do we stop?" Why not require them for renovations, all construction, out buildings? Why not require heated sidewalks and driveways to prevent serious slip and fall accidents? Pools kill more people than fires each year, should we also ban them? Wood Stoves have burning pieces of wood in them! They need to leave the house, now!
Seriously, Brian. Where do we stop? And then the eventual follow on to your response --> why there?
At some point the people have to be left to make their own decisions and take responsibility for their own safety and lives. Government shouldn't be in the job of legislating against everything that could potentially hurt you or in favor of everything that could potentially help you.
- Mike W., Milton, NH
Are all you people brain dead? Your the same people who complain that the Fire Department doesn't come fast enough when you have a headache or a chimmney fire! Your also the same people who jump up and down and scream and yell when there is a fire death that something has to be done and more money needs to be spent protecting your lives. Well here it is. Any of you complainers trained Firefighters, of course not so you have no idea what your talking about. Isn't Candia where they just lost two people in a fire?? Mz. Nord has a lot of brains going against this bill coming from a town with a recent fire death! You people will just never get it, its is a fact that sprinklers save lives and property, YOUR lives and property
- John, Manchester
Lets face it folks. Democrats re going to do as much damage as possible before every single one of them is voted out in 2010.
Time to start thinking about which candidates stand on the platform of repeal.
- Chuck, Chester
As a former volunteer firefighter who has taken the classes, been to fire inspector training and watched training videos showing sprinklers in action I am certain of one thing: Sprinklers do work. Lives are saved, destruction is reduced. There have been house fires I have been in with substantial property damage that could have been slowed or even stopped had there been a sprinkler system installed.
That being said, I am completely opposed to the building code and fire code changes that NH is adopting here. Spend some fire prevention money on a campaign. Convince insurance companies to run a campaign. Encourage the installation but do not mandate it.
The cost, in this case, does not outweigh the benefit of a mandate. I knew the advantages of a residential sprinkler system when I built my house 5 years ago. I chose not to add the additional cost and deal with the maintenance, protection during power outages, flushing, anti-freeze, etc. of the system. Even the $3200 cost that is low-balled in the article would take quite some time to recoup from insurance premium savings. I pay about $400 annually. Let's just say that I got $50 off, it would take my 64 years to see the project paid for.
Yes, the heart string argument... My family is priceless and irreplaceable. That is why I have working smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and talk about evacuation routes and familiarize the family with the sound of the alarms. That is why I check my batteries at least 2 times a year.
My other rationale for thinking this rule change is silly --> Where does it stop? Propane kills people each year, do we outlaw propane furnances for the good of the people who are too dumb to protect themselves? Do we require inflatable landing cushions at the bottom of all stair wells? (We already have to have railings on stairways that aren't just open on the end, even to the basement... I was told if I had "wide sleeves" on, they could get stuck and I could fall up or down the stairs...)
Let's start leaving some aspects of our own safety up to "we the people"
- Mike W., milton, nh
In addiiton to requiring a hugh water storgae tank and supply for homes not on municipal water, what additional expense is required to ensure that the system will not freeze during cold weather if power goes out for an extened time (e.g., remember the 2008 ice storm).
- Pat Spooner, Windham
Two points and a suggestion here.
One. Unmentioned is the maintenance cost to sprinklers. We have winter here and there is a large cost associated with heating a building to keep the sprinkler system, usually in a non-living area, from freezing. I recently read an article where the state is tearing down an abandoned factory in Farmington. The cost to heat to keep the sprinkler system from failing was stated as one of the big reasons for the demolition.
Two. New homes are far safer than old homes and have much more fire resistant thought and materials in them. Building codes with what they are, new homes are far less likely to catch fire.
Suggestion. Submit legislation that requires that every town and city that enforces the mandatory sprinkler systems may reduce the fire department personnel by 25%. As stated in the MUL article by National Fire Sprinkler Association President Joseph Viniello. "It's like having a fireman on duty in your house 24 hours day." There will no longer be a need for all these firemen to be hanging around waiting for a fire. All we will need is smoke and water damage cleanup which can be done by private contractors.
- Cliff Newton, Rochester
Aw, stop complaining. Sprinkler systems will save lives and won't bring the local housing industry to a grinding halt. People who complain about this safety proposal are most likely those who oppose seat belts, air bags, emission standards, fuel efficiency standards, zoning regulations and building codes in general. Just because a new standard adds to the cost of construction doesn't necessarily mean it's not desirable or beneficial.
- Brian, Farmington
How about the legislature stop meddling altogether?
Who are the sponsors of this bill? What is their connection to the construction and sprinkler business?
If this bill passes, the next addition will be to make any house undergoing a renovation put in sprinklers, and then it will be all houses.
Government at work. The federal MO has now spread to the state level!
- Melvin, Keene
Ever notice how in the name of public safety personal freedom is always sacraficed and forced spending of personal wealth. A sprinkler system activation for any reason can do as much damage as a fire. The cost estimate is incorrect and too low. This puts new construction at a cost disadvantage over an existing house for resale. Home sprinklers are a bureaucrats dream, another extension of the "Nanny" government. Each of us is responsible for our own safety, each of us should be responsible for how we spend our money. This is a bad idea and it is being implemented at a very bad time in the state's economy.
- Pete, Dover
There are few more in favor of sprinklers that I. However, I'm not in favor of mandating their installation in single family homes.
Sprinklers save lives, there is no question. And it's a 100 year history, not 30 years. Their "failure" rate, Mr Mercier, is practically non existent so that's not the issue. I plan to build in the next five years and I might install them.
So, why am I against the mandate? The State Fire Marshall said it best, "Our role as government officials is to look at what's best for the public." That is why it is appropriate for laws to mandate sprinklers in public buildings. However, it is oversteping the role of government to require an expensive addition to a private building.
And it's much more expensive that this article indicates. Sprinklers require water and most houses have private water supplies which are not likely strong enough to be adequate. That means a storage tank and a pump. And if a pump is required, will a back up generator be required also?
I could go on. The mandate is a bad idea. Another nanny state project.
- Ralph, Amherst
In first place Don Bliss needs to get the ides OUT of his head that he is NOT a Czar and can do whatever he wants and expect that every code official in the State will hop onto the lemming train!
Average cost of $3200 for a 2000 sf home?! OH REALLY?!! And where did those figures get pulled out of the air from? The figure certainly doesn't include the cost of the owner installing (and maintaining) a separate water source (not everyone is on a municipal water supply system) or what the INCREASE in the homeowner's insurance for water DAMAGE will be or the cost of maintaining and testing the sprinkler system. I would be willing to guess that it doesn't include the electrical and monitoring systems OR the charge(s) from mutual aid for the system to be linked into their controls.
Time for Don to step down and get out of the public sector. He was a Czar when he was the State Fire Marshal and fought the inception of a State wide Building Code monitored by someone besides himself (where he could, and did, use his own power to make rules according to his feelings and whims).
This is one more step of governemnt control over private citizens lives - period!
- Aber, Swanzey
"Estimates are that the systems will cost about $3,200 for a 2,000 square foot house."
"She noted that the systems require separate water supplies, extra plumbing and installation expense. "
Am I missing something or is the estimate completely wrong for most towns that do not have a municipal water supply. Requiring an additional water supply in MY area would cost $5000 alone. Where is the $3200 estimate coming from?
If I remember correctly in the towns that already "require" sprinklers in NH, it is just a shakedown for the town. Put the sprinkler system, or pay us a fairly large (but less than the cost of an elaborate system) fee, seemed to be the rule of law there.
- Dave, NH
How about a compromise? If the new home has fire hydrants within a certain distance - 100 ft, 200 ft, whatever makes sense - no sprinklers are required. If hydrants are not present, then sprinklers are required.
I've got a newer home that has sprinklers - I get a discount on home owners insurance. Never had a malfunction, they are not hooked into the alarms. They have their own heat sensors that trigger based on temperature.
- Pete, New Boston
Yes, there have been fires in New Hampshire. Yes, people have died and maybe sprinklers might have saved their lives. Yet as the article noted, most deaths related to building fires occur when smoke detectors are not working. Far more people die in New Hampshire from cancer related to smoking than have died from fires in a home. Far more people have died from alcohol related deaths than fires in homes. Has the New Hampshire legislature suggested that alcohol and cigarettes be banned? Of course not, the state makes money off them!
The economy is in the tanks and if it recovers it is doubtful that it will be anytime soon. For the average person the dream of home ownership is staying more and more a dream and less and a less a becoming a reality. I was fortunate to by my house when the market was right yet I struggle with property taxes and heating bills. I cannot see home a person can afford to buy a home these days.
- justfedup, Barrington NH
The only thing that would top this article is an article reporting the tarring and feathering of every elected offical who supports the massive overstepping of the Government's role.
Anyone remember the "live free" part of our State motto?
- Michael Layon, Derry
Addendum:
Did you people ever consider how you could reduce building costs.
- Bob, Salem
This is a big joke.
Don't you people have anything better to do than this.
- Bob, Salem
Is the State going to pick up the costs of water damage should these things have a failure?
And at what cost to the taxpayers?
Think the extended loss of electricity was a big deal before... wait until this becomes broadly in force.
- John Edward Mercier, Belmont