I struggled a bit in writing this blog because I kept having mixed feelings about wanting to report the residential sprinkler initiative and promote fire chief involvement in the development of building and fire codes in the same paper. So what I allowed to happen with this writing is a mix of the two. Sometimes you cannot separate inter-related subjects as each depends on the other for background or linked information, so I’ll let you try to sort it out. In an earlier blog I wrote about the residential sprinkler initiative that was being proposed to the International Residential Code as part of the International Code Council family of codes. After witnessing a code hearing for the first time, I found it an intense but understandable process with which fire chiefs need to be actively involved. To get to a national requirement for residential sprinklers, we need to be involved in this code process.
Fire Chiefs and Code Development
I have heard frequent comments about the negative aspects of building codes that decrease mass of materials and make the firefighter’s job even more dangerous than it already is. Codes that reduce the window of time that the firefighter can either stand on or under floors that are supported by beams engineered to be just over the threshold necessary to support a designed load but that can be consumed in minutes may just put the firefighter on the scene at the worst time, just before potential collapse. There are many more examples where, for the sake of economy and efficiency, engineering has facilitated a built world that is not as forgiving to firefighters as it once had been.
So what are we going to do about it? No doubt about it, the building industry controls the building code, and maybe this is their domain and should be this way. But we have had little impact in this arena over the years and need to. Chiefs, we all need to join the International Code Council and provide staff who can be involved in committee work — at least in those areas that are critical to safety and survival of firefighters — and ultimately vote at the code hearings. Considering that we are afforded significant opportunity to positively affect the codes, the price of membership ($280 for governments representing populations greater then 150,000; there are graduated prices based on population) is not bad. This gives you voting opportunity for up to 12 staff. Click here to see ICC membership information.
The ICC is a somewhat new animal to the code world. It was formed in 2003 by combining the legacy codes we used for years, such as Building Officials and Code Administrators, the Uniform Building Code developed by the former International Conference of Building Officials, and Southern Building Code Congress International. Fire service members in some areas of the country have been working over the last couple of years to adjust the new International Building Code to accommodate their concerns.
These officials found that, after a consensus code was developed to accommodate all three legacy codes, some good features were lost from the former codes. In particular, the California Fire Chiefs Association has been very aggressive at committee and ultimately in votes at the hearings to try to make adjustments to the IBC. This past year has seen a lot of hard work by the California group and other fire service ICC members to make adjustments and hold onto some of the more restrictive language in IBC relating to height and area allowances. While this critical work was going on with height and area code language, the fire service and fire protection industry also were working to move a code requirement for residential sprinklers from the appendix to the body of the code. We need to continue this activity and increase it significantly if we are going to be able to get on equal footing with the building industry and improve fire and life safety for firefighters.
Speaking with Jim Tidwell, retired chief of the Fort Worth (Texas) Fire Department and the ICC director of fire service activities, he describes the fire service’s ability to come in at the end of the code development and revision process and still have the opportunity to make needed changes. Proposed codes do not become set until a final hearing and vote before the ICC government members. It is strictly a final vote from the government members to finalize a code change. What has been the norm is that it is mostly government building officials who are directly involved in this voting. The final process occurred the week of May 20 in Rochester, N.Y., and even though the fire service and fire protection industry (because this was an effort that involved all fire service players) were not successful, we did make a statement about being committed to having an influence on the codes.
Now is the time to apply for membership on ICC Committees. These committees are formed anew after the final hearing. One important feature of ICC Committee involvement is that committee expenses are fully covered by the ICC.
Residential Sprinklers Come Close
At the Rochester ICC code hearings, the fire service was able to vote down committee action to sustain the code and not allow the residential sprinkler requirement into the code body. (One of the core values of ICC Committees is to sustain the code’s status quo.) Once the floor had overturned the recommendation of the committee, it was then necessary to have a new recommendation to take the place of the defeated recommendation. Successful achievement of a floor amendment requires a vote of 2/3 majority (a super majority) of the floor to sustain the new recommendation. The fire service came up 80 plus votes short of the super majority. Upon failing to get the votes, the original committee action, as described in the ICC rules, stands.
So it was that close this year to the fire service obtaining a national residential sprinkler requirement. In the future we need to be proactive and drive the code process as much as possible as opposed to merely reacting. While there were some excellent amendments achieved at the code hearings, with a super-majority requirement we cannot depend on this as a strategy. The National Association of Home Builders spent over a quarter of a million dollars to fight the fire service on residential sprinklers.
We need to be involved in the code process throughout the whole cycle, which means developing and exercising more influence and participation in the committee work. You have heard that it often takes more energy to solve a problem then it took to create the problem. In the ICC process of code amendment, it takes more energy, resources, converted opposition, etc. to overturn the action of the committee than it took for the committee to take its normal action. If there are areas of building codes that we want to influence, we need to be able to have aggressive involvement throughout the process. By the way, our concern for lightweight construction could be offset by residential sprinklers, which are designed to reduce the potential for a fire reaching flashover. Maybe this is our trade-off for allowing lightweight structural materials that do not stand up well to a fire that gets into the structure.
We may never be able to convert home builders into residential sprinkler advocates, but we can educate them on every detail of how they work, what they are and what they are not. The builder associations should be hounded by us with our sales pitch. We need to get them to sit through a workshop and demo on how sprinklers work. Maybe more important then convincing the builders is to market the good sense of residential sprinklers to the government building officials who, as a group, do not understand the technology and fear that sprinklers will create nightmares for them in their work world. Like the code committees, the building officials try to achieve calm and normalcy among their customers (builders), so if we can help them do this we may be able to convince them that including sprinklers in the residential code is not going to be a bad thing. It was the government building officials who did not support our efforts in Rochester. They are a critical group.
What are the next steps in selling the need for residential sprinklers? To begin with, fire chiefs at the local level and fire protection professionals can start today by opening a dialogue with local building officials. Meet with them for the sole purpose of showing them how these systems work. Bring in groups like Fire Team USA to assist in a regional education workshop on sprinklers. Borrow or build a side-by-side sprinkler demo. There’s nothing like visualizing how well the technology works, and building a sprinkler demonstration trailer is an excellent and relevant use of a Fire Prevention and Safety Grant.
We also can try to create the next successful safety feature that people just have to have. Somewhere out there is an influential person who can turn residential sprinklers into the next vehicle airbag, child safety seat, anti-smoking or Mothers Against Drunk Driving campaign. We need to copy the model for those programs and convert our product, residential sprinklers, into something everyone must have. We were close at the hearings to obtaining requirements for residential sprinklers in the International Residential Code. We start today to make sure we have the IRC committee recommendation during the next code cycle.
June 20th, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
I’m glad to see more operational chiefs starting to recognize the value of building codes in creating safe workplaces for our firefighters. If the fire service wants to see requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems in residential and domestic structures become a reality, they must accept that committed action AND comprehensive and well-reasoned arguments will be required.
The homebuilders have beat back these requirements for many years (20+ that I’m aware of) by putting sophisticated benefit/cost assessments forward. The fire service has difficulty countering these arguments when no community seems willing to condition the costs of public fire services (and tax rates levied to pay for them) on private investments in sprinklers. The public admires firefighters more than any other profession in America for the risks they take, but nevertheless puts a price on their heads, as evidenced by the unwillingness to accept the costs of mandatory staffing and response time standards like NFPA 1710 as well as sprinkler requirements. If we can’t have either one alone, what makes us think communities will accept both?
Clearly, the advocates of residential sprinklers have yet to convince enough people of their value, so naturally people are preoccupied with their cost. If I recall correctly, your own community — Montgomery County, Md. — was among the first to adopt a home sprinkler ordinance. This regulation did not require sprinklers outright, but rather required builders to incorporate these systems in show homes and offer them to prospective buyers as an option. Few took up the option despite the low cost, favoring instead other add-ons like upgraded kitchens or double-glazing. This says quite a lot about personal preferences and attitudes when you consider the median price of new homes in your county.
NAHB’s argument extends to less–well-off communities, and suggests that raising the cost of home construction will keep many people out of the market altogether. Those at greatest risk of experiencing fires also find it more difficult to afford their own homes, and this clearly has many adverse effects on their well-being. This leads me to question whether the fire service is willing to accept that these people are better off renting at the bottom end of the market where few existing properties will have sprinklers rather than helping maintain affordability by allowing people to buy new homes without fire sprinklers, which would clearly help many disadvantaged families improve their lives. If so, this leaves us in the unwelcome position of means-testing the requirements or offering public subsidies to offset the added costs.
Requiring home sprinklers in the model code will come at a cost. The fire service will have to accept that these costs have very real social consequences if they wish to succeed in the model code arena. I believe we will have to admit that we can’t have home sprinkler requirements AND increased fire department expenditures on staffing, stations and apparatus before we will win enough people over.
June 21st, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
More chief officers and other fire service leaders must develop a more positive and supportive attitude toward sprinklers, if for no other reason than firefighter safety. Firefighters are not dying in buildings protected by automatic fire sprinkler systems. How many, if any, civilians are dying in dwellings protected by automatic fire sprinklers? I noted in the IAFC 2007–08 Strategic Plan that only one mention was made regarding residential sprinklers and it was directed at firefighter safety involving dwelling fires. The IAFC and other fire service organizations espousing the need for firefighter safety must make sprinklers a more prominent focus of their overall strategic missions.
June 25th, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
I agree with Doug. I believe that our fire service leaders are not focused on not only fire sprinklers, but even fire prevention in general. Just to make a point, take a look at this statement that was said on the “national stage” with millions of people watching live:
“In their memory, we rededicate our efforts to supporting first responders across this nation and around the world. Long ago, we considered firefighter fatalities part of the job. Today, we know that training and equipment, when matched with the courage of individuals, can reduce risks and bring more of our boys and girls home each night. I look forward to the day when we cease to lose our bravest and brightest in these tragedies and that someday Everyone Goes Home.”
You know who that person was and when was this statement made? It was our own Dave Paulison (whom I respect immensely) at the Charleston memorial services just last Friday. What does that show you? Tremendous love and respect for the fire service.
But with all respect, I believe it also shows the one-dimensional fire suppression mentality that has dominated our fire service for decades. Take a look at what he stated: “Today, we know that training and equipment, when matched with the courage of individuals, can reduce risks and bring more of our boys and girls home each night.” Do you see any trace of fire prevention and education in that statement at all? Training, equipment and courage obviously are very important. But is this how we are going to address our fire problem?
I think that our Charleston heroes that displayed the ultimate courage would have faced the same tragedy going in, even with the best of equipments and the state-of-the art training. Why? Because feasible and available fire sprinkler technology was not used to protect the building, which contributed to the flashover and then structural failure.
I don’t know the details of the Charleston fire, but based on some of the preliminaries that I have read, I think that Charleston Fire Chief Rusty Thomas was in a way correct in his statement “sprinklers would not have put out the fire but would have at least slowed it.” I believe that most likely, if they did have fire sprinklers, at the very least, there would not be a flashover and catastrophic structural failure; at least not with our brothers inside. Fact is that fire sprinklers do not prevent fires. Fire sprinklers merely minimize the adverse consequences of failures.
Historically, Dave Paulison has been a strong proponent, but in that very moment on the “national stage” he forgot to add a couple of important words about fire prevention and fire protection. I think, the three Es of fire prevention — Education, Enforcement and Engineering — bring a tremendous value to solve the fire problem, in addition to the training, equipment and courage that Dave had mentioned. That was a teachable moment, not only for the nation, but even more importantly, our own firefighters. Our fire service leaders need to be more cognizant of such prime opportunities for education.
June 26th, 2007 @ 10:43 am
As in the efforts that were put forth on the stage at Rochester, no one likes to hear the same messages repeated to the point of turning off the listener. So, suffice it to say that when we see changes in the code that do not reflect modern-day science and economics but reflect the drive of those who seek only to profit from their endeavors, then we must only blame ourselves (the fire service). We have had the knowledge for many years that fire prevention keeps the trucks in the barn and people alive.
Why is it then that many fire service agencies ignore the outcomes of so many reports that place emphasis on the need to improve fire prevention, even at the expense of operations? Why do we place the least of our efforts on the actions that can prevent or mitigate the hazard, and the most on our efforts to forstall the outcome after the hazard has occured?
When every chief is willing to risk as much political suicide every day, in the way that professional inspectors do in their jobs, then maybe we will see some real change. When was the last time a chiefs convention focused on fire prevention? When was a Code seminar overrun with chief officers learning the best methods of protecting the public?
Years ago I was running a fire training academy, and after many teams had gone through the burn building, I mentioned to the chief officer that was standing near me that no leader should be willing to send a firefighter into a burning building unless he was willing to do the same. That chief officer went into the burn building with the next team.
Chief officers, how many of you are willing to walk side by side with your inspectors or fire marshals, even when you may lose some political power?
July 12th, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Death by fire is unacceptable - period. The National Association of Home Builders “mailing list” should receive 8″ x 10″ color photographs of burned children with an impassioned statement/plea from the Fire Service for action.
More effective would be a similar mailing to ALL state legislators in a given “targeted” state. Do one at a time.
January 31st, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
At the Rochester ICC code hearings, the public’s Firefighting Service gathered together with great intentions. Being a ICC Code Official and Member of NFPA, it was wonderful to see a group of this magnitude making a difference for all. Please step back, reorganize and propose a new code change. The need is now. Working together and understand all four sides to this issue is a must (citizens, contractors, code officials and Fire Officials). Looking over the numbers, such as residential fires being around 60, 70 or 80 percent and 30 to 40 percent kitchens fires, depending on the study. These numbers can change daily depending on the citizens of this great nation. Helping them with education requires guidance of one standard. Here is my idea, Residential installation requirements of Fire Extinguishers and Kitchen Range Extinguisher Systems (NFPA 10F or R?). I believe our friends in Texas may have some ideas. The ICC Codes make requirements and refer to installation standards. What is the solution, expectable to citizens, contractors, code officials and Fire Officials?
January 31st, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
What is the solution, acceptable to citizens, contractors, code officials and Fire Officials?