In a Collegeville Trappe Municipal Authority meeting last week, it was announced that the mandatory requirement that all newly constructed residential homes be equipped with a fire suppression sprinkler system has been repealed.
As Tom Corbett’s first bill as Pennsylvania’s governor, the repeal was the result much debate from both sides.
Earlier in the year, state Rep. Garth Everett, R-Lycoming County, introduced House Bill 377, which would repeal the mandate. The House approved the bill March 7 with a vote of 154-39. The Senate’s Labor and Industry Committee approved the legislation April 6, and the bill was signed on April 25.
Proponents say sprinklers save lives by extinguishing fires before firefighters can get to the scene. Opponents, led by the Pennsylvania Builders Association, say it would drive up housing prices unnecessarily.
The estimated sprinkler cost for a 2,000-square-foot house is about $5,000, not including the design work and backup pumps. This price is higher in more rural areas that do not use public water supplies.
Trappe Borough Councilman Paul Edwards said this about the repealed mandate, “As a building inspector, I feel that the current code regulations for newly constructed homes are adequate and make our homes safe. The sprinkler ordinance put an unnecessary financial burden on the homebuyer and builder."
There also will be a cost savings to the residents who would have had to pay for annual testing and inspection of the piping systems.
“This will not affect the operation of our water and sewer department or costs to the rate payers,” he added.
Corbett called it a "common sense" measure that will help keep new home prices within the reach of Pennsylvania's working families.
"Whether or not new homes are equipped with sprinklers should be a decision left to individual consumers and not the government," Corbett said. "While there are arguments on both sides of this issue, I believe the sprinkler mandate is wrong-headed, and I'm glad the General Assembly sent this bill to my desk."
Builders must still offer buyers the option of installing an automatic fire sprinkler system, and provide buyers with information about the costs and benefits.
In the 1970's, a functional air bag was invented for cars and Detroit decided, on behalf of all the people who ride in cars and whose lives could have been saved, that the car buyer would not be willing to pay the extra price for the extra safety. It was 30 more years before air bags became standard equipment - and only with the government's prodding. If sprinklers save lives, then the consumer should get to make that choice as to whether or not they can afford the extra cost.
PA would be an ideal place for sprinklers being mandatory in new homes, since a lot of PA is very rural, and fire department response times could be lengthy. Forget about saving lives and property- lets just worry about which lobbying group/special interest donates enough money.
Furthermore, RSS greatly reduce the risk of injury and death to those responding to extinguish the blaze, thereby reducing the tax-payer burden of paying for the related costs of a firefighter line of duty injury or death. In closing, $5,000 for something that has repeatedly been proven to prevent property loss and the loss of life versus repeated tax increases seems to me a no-brainer. The fact that this life saving bill was repealed proved PA politicians have no brains.
Another factor that has not been discussed is the potential for sprinkler systems to cause more damage than the fire itself. Water damage to areas otherwise not effected by fire as well as damage resulting from system malfunction are a reality. How would the insurance company protect against this risk? Higher rates??? Contray to one of the comments made, annual nspections would be required of the backflow prevention valve and other components just as is currently required in commercial buildings. Lastly, everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's just unfortunate that some find it necessary to use personal attacks in order to express theirs.
I'm going to assume you're not a firefighter, Paul (this is not a personal attack). I was going to go on and on about how much more dangerous todays homes are to us firefighters, particularly multi-family units, and single family dwellings that are built within a couple feet of each other. I was going to go on and on about how much more risks there are for fighters in today's structures, but Jim did a fine job. In closing, RSS protects more than just the dwelling they're installed in. They protect those sworn to put the fires out and rescue those inside, too.
Smoke detectors do not require RSS, to that point you are correct. RSS do NOT require smoke detectors, so to that point you are ill-informed. While it is true that properly maintained smoke detectors do indeed save lives, the sad fact is that the majority of fatal fires are either void of smoke detectors altogether or even more sad have non-functioning smoke detectors. Look beyond the NHBA's rediculous arguments against RSS and think beyond the residents themselves. Smoke detectos may -MAY - alert occupants of a fire, but it does not extinguish the fire nor keep plames in-check; the fire grows unimpeded. As such those responding to the incident are placed imperil, a peril that is unnecessary. I will agree, somewhat, with your point regarding rural properties, but systems can be (at greater cost, of course) made to function when the dwellings power is cut. An argument against RSS would be similar to an argument against personal restraint systems and airbags in automobiles, which are government mandated and add a great deal to the vehicles sticker price, and do nothing to prevent property loss nor to add to the safety of emergency responders. While I respect your opinion(s), I strongly - obviously - disagree.
You say smoke detectors MAY alert...? The National Institute of Standards and Technology says smoke alarms "consistently provided time for occupants to escape" from most residential fires. For some reason, they seem to be more enthusiastic about smoke alarms than you are. As for missing and non-functioning smoke detectors, I can only wonder how long it will take those with similar regard for safety to sell their sprinkler heads on ebay and replace them with pipe plugs. You can try to save people from themselves, but please don't make your solutions involve me. Thanks for your comments.