By Brittany Brown
According to the U.S. Fire Administration, there were more than 374,300 residential structure fires, resulting in 2,720 deaths and 10,250 civilian injuries in 2022 (USFA). Twenty years ago, we had 15 to 17 minutes to escape during a fire.
Now, with so many synthetic furnishings in our homes, fires can turn deadly in less than two minutes. We actually have a 15% greater chance of dying in a home fire now than we did 40 years ago (HFSC, SFPE).
Residential fire sprinklers make a huge difference, giving people critical time to get out. These systems can reduce the risk of fire fatalities by almost 90% while lowering the injury rate by 31% (NFPA). Additionally, in homes where a residential fire sprinkler system was present, the fire was contained to the room of origin 96% of the time, with just one sprinkler operating 85% of the time. In other words, the damage is contained to the room of origin (NFPA).
So, we know residential fire sprinkler systems are immensely effective; they are just not necessarily common. An NFPA report revealed that only 7% of reported residential structure fires had sprinkler systems installed at the time of a fire event — a relatively low number considering that the concept for these systems was introduced within our codes and standards almost 20 years ago (Fine Homebuilding).
Life safety amended out of the codes
In 2006, multi-purpose fire sprinkler systems were included within the International Residential Code (IRC), but only as an optional adoption (FineHomebuilding). The IRC is the code for homes, including single-family dwellings, duplexes and townhomes, and is generally applied to buildings up to three stories in grade, which may include tiny homes/houses (which also have their own provisions) and accessory dwelling units (Uponor). Three years later, however, these provisions moved into the full code, specifically the plumbing section, as a mandatory provision, where they still reside today.
After 2009, many states began dropping the mandatory provision for multi-purpose fire sprinkler systems from their codes, which included the provisions for even 13D standalone systems. While the code for the provisions residential fire sprinkler requirements is adopted within the IRC in all 50 states, by 2024, it had been amended out by more than half of states. Here’s the breakdown:
- 2 states have adopted this requirement (California and Maryland)
- 2 have partially adopted it (Massachusetts and New York)
- 26 states defeated the provision at the state level; and
- 20 states allow localities to attempt adoption at a local level, but it cannot be mandated at the state level (NAHB).
So, let’s recap: We have amended the concept of residential fire sprinkler systems almost entirely out of our codes, the building industry is justifiably expensive, and the need for affordable homes is continual. How did we get here?
Understanding the design
When multi-purpose sprinkler systems were initially imagined, the intent was to simply augment our plumbing systems with fire protection features — to run off potable water, one line within our homes, using the plumbing systems that are already there, to provide sustainable, economically efficient and reliable fire protection. The systems would not require redundant water lines nor water supply upsizing.
Unlike standalone systems — sometimes called NFPA 13D systems — the multi-purpose systems would use flexible materials like PEX tubing, which we already use for plumbing systems, and run off the pressure and the quantity of water available, with generous margins for hydraulic calculations (Uponor). Also, with water continually moving through the home, with normal use of the water supply, the risk for freezing pipes is minimal.
Often, as long as the system is designed by a fire protection professional, the installation can be conducted by various building trade professionals, like a plumber.
These systems often do not need additional components, such as backflow preventers or much additional plumbing line, as they are all already integrated into existing plumbing lines.
In order to install these systems, there are a few upgrades needed. The systems solely use the water supply present and offer deviations at prescribed areas for the installation of fire sprinklers. In most cases, instead of running a line for the sink, then the shower, and then the bathtub, one is run for a fire sprinkler, and that same line can run on continuously throughout the structure.
In addition, the systems are only designed to be installed in occupiable areas under a two-head design calculation. The calculations for these residential occupancies are 50% less than most commercial occupancies, which include even those systems that would use a 13R application, which are most residential buildings greater than 60 feet in height, or more than four stories in height (NFPA).
The system was meant to be simple, an extra line here or there, but instead of going to just the washing machine or ice maker, it would go to a sprinkler in occupiable areas like bedrooms and kitchens. These systems were not required in bathrooms under 55 square feet, closets less than 26 square feet, or patios, garages, balconies or awnings. They are meant just for life safety, with most systems requiring no more than 14 PSI allocation from the already existing water supply.
So, is this plumbing or fire protection? The goal was both, allowing home builders to install fire protection in areas they were already planning to run plumbing lines, with an added benefit of meeting the minimum standards of the code, all to meet life safety standards at a cost that was not significant.
Cost tradeoffs
Despite such a simplified concept, there is resistance within the building community. Adding a multi-purpose system would cost a mere $1-$2 per square foot in new construction, likely less than $5,000 per home. Deciding on the installation of these systems is like choosing among various flooring types, many of which range between $2-$7 per square foot, or even different countertop materials like selecting granite or quartz instead of marble in one single room (NFSA). But in this case, choosing granite or quartz instead of marble in that one single room would pay for the entire fire sprinkler system installation to effectively control a home fire. In the realm of building materials, one room’s countertop material change, cost-wise, could save your home and your life.
More than half of our states cannot adopt any requirements to make these provisions mandatory, which is concerning, particularly considering that our fire codes and standards are the minimum level of life safety — and 46 states go below even what is considered the lowest level of safety. We know that our home fires are becoming more deadly — we have even less time to get out in the event of a fire. We should have at least the minimum level of safety, which is our multi-purpose systems.
Advocate for life safety
We need to advocate for that basic, minimum level of life safety and stop allowing the removal of the portions of the code that protect us and our communities. In this case, a simple plumbing change has the potential to address our rising home fire fatalities. We simply must keep the multi-purpose system as it was intended two decades ago, right in the plumbing chapter where it can and should be installed in every home. This requirement is still right there in the code; it’s a legislative overstep at the state levels that has led to its exclusion in 46 states — a swift removal of the minimum level of life safety.
The primary question now: Why is political pressure so high that we cannot even reach the minimum benchmark to address fire safety in the United States? Consider how a simple modified plumbing system, for the cost of a different countertop material in our homes, could address our evolving fire risk — if we let it.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Brittany Brown is the chief of fire prevention at the Leawood (Kansas) Fire Department. She previously served as a division chief for the South Adams County (Colorado) Fire Department and as a fire marshal and firefighter in New Mexico, Texas and Kentucky. Brown teaches for the National Fire Academy and The Southern California Safety Institute, and previously taught at Eastern Kentucky University and the New Mexico Firefighters Training Academy. She holds a master’s degree in systems engineering from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and is currently pursuing a PhD in forensics from Oklahoma State University. Brown also serves as an SME/committee member for the NFPA, ICC, NICET, OSAC and IFSTA.
REFERENCES:
- NFPA report - U.S. Experience with Sprinklers
- The International Residential Code - ICC
- White Paper: Why PEX-based Multipurpose Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems Outperform Standalone CPVC Designs
- Residential fire estimate summaries (2014-2023)
- fire-sprinkler-facts
- EuropeIssue24Feature2 - SFPE
- Differences Between NFPA 13, NFPA 13R, and NFPA 13D
- Fire Sprinkler Mandates - State-by-State Data
- The (Often Painful) Evolution of Residential Fire Sprinklers - Fine Homebuilding
- The True Cost to Install a Residential Fire Sprinkler System
