N.C. Debates Whether Residential Sprinklers Too Costly to Mandate

A North Carolina Firefighters’ group petitioning for mandatory safety measures in certain new residential construction believe a recent ruling by the state’s Building Code Council to hold-off pending further study came too quickly.

Wes Greene, chief of the Mooresville, N.C. Fire Department, is a key member of the contingent requesting mandatory installation of sprinkler systems in new homes of more than 3,600 square feet or structures three or more stories off the ground. He said firefighters are disappointed the council did not accept the mandatory sprinkler measure as it was presented.

During a public hearing held at the end of last year, firefighters asked the council not to drop a provision in the state building code that would allow local jurisdictions to require sprinklers in new houses. The provision is scheduled to become effective in 2009 if the council doesn’t remove it.

According to Greene, the proposal was not given proper consideration. He said he has never seen the council do something like this before, adding that the usual procedure is to accept a proposal, study it and come back at a later date with a judgment.

But Dan Tingen, chairman of the Building Code Council, said that contrary to the firefighters’ perception, no final decision has been made in regard to the mandatory sprinkler system petition. He said the issue cannot be decided in one meeting.

At the December hearing, the council declined to consider the group’s request.

“We’re not going to be ram-rodded,” Tingen said. “I don’t trust the numbers until I can prove them.”

The council told its residential committee to study whether a residential sprinkler system requirement is feasible. Tingen said he was committed to considering the committee’s recommendation.

“We want to have a thorough debate,” Tingen said. “There’s more than one side to the issue.”

The North Carolina Department of Insurance echoed the concerns of Greene’s team. Kristin Milam, the department’s assistant director of public information, also expressed disappointment in the council’s refusal to entertain the sprinkler system petition as it was presented.

“We want more sprinklers in buildings rather than fewer – including residences,” Milam said.

Milam said the issue has been fueled by the deaths of seven South Carolina college students in a North Carolina beach house fire in October 2007. She said the petition for sprinkler systems would be particularly critical for the type of property in which the students perished because renters may be unfamiliar with the layout of rental houses or inadequately equipped to escape in the event of an emergency.

According to Milam, while the state’s Building Code Council is grouped as an entity under the Department of Insurance, it is a governor-appointed board and is autonomous with regard to code enforcement issues. The insurance department staffs council meetings and its official functions, but in a passive role, solely for record-keeping purposes, she said.

Tingen said the residential standing committee, chaired by Dave Smith, will hold a meeting on Feb. 12 in Raleigh, prior to the next official public hearing on March 11, to discuss residential sprinklers. The firefighters must bring solid information and statistics to be evaluated, he added.

Tingen said he supports installation of sprinklers but not at the cost of a mandate. He said he favors public education initiatives and encourages the insurance department to create an ad campaign that would “sell the value” of residential sprinkler systems.

“If you’re going to require sprinklers, we should have it across the board,” Tingen added.

The North Carolina Home Builders Association, which argues that the costs of sprinkler systems exceed the potential property losses they might prevent, praised the council’s approach, claiming it “supports the development of an effective public fire-safety education program.”

The change would have increased the cost of a new home by as much as two percent, according to the home builders. Tingen said that figure could easily escalate to five percent depending on the size, design or the location of the house.

But fire safety professionals think safety is being compromised. Assistant State Fire Marshal Wayne Goodwin said, “The council’s vote is indicative of a lesser interest in public safety than in a few meager dollars.”

Insurer groups appear to be on the side of firefighters.

Keith D. Lessner, vice president of loss control for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said sprinkled structures require half the number of firefighters to perform critical tasks. “Sprinklers are universally recognized by fire experts as a primary means to prevent fire damage,” Lessner said.

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for the American Insurance Association, said the state needs to take steps to mitigate the risk of fires. “The potential toll that fire can take on a household or a community is serious, and where reasonable steps can be taken to fight dangerous fires before they begin, they should be,” Bounds said.

According to Lessner, even though efforts to have fire codes incorporate residential sprinkler requirements are not likely to be successful in the short-term, the efforts will continue. “Supporters of residential sprinklers and sprinkler contractors estimate 1 to 1.5 percent of the cost of home,” he said. “Home builders dispute this estimate claiming costs two to three times higher. The reality is mitigation has costs and while these costs will produce benefits by preventing the costs associated with loss, the data is not likely to yield sufficient certainty to resolve disputes based solely on quantifiable costs.”

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

Topics North Carolina