BY RICHARD A. MARINUCCI

The number of deaths and injuries and the loss of money attributed to fire in the United States remain high. The vast majority of these losses have been recorded in residential homes, causing the United States to rank in the top five for residential fire losses among the industrialized nations in the world. Although technology exists to significantly reduce these fire-related losses, namely automatic fire sprinklers and automatic fire alarms, the use of this technology has met with resistance.

Automatic sprinklers have proven reliable and effective since they were first used in the late 19th century. The efforts some fire service professionals from across the country have been making to have sprinklers incorporated into residential construction have met with opposition, mainly from home builders. They cite reasons such as the high cost of sprinklers and the potential for water damage from system malfunctions. The home builders industry has engaged in politics to affect policy decisions regarding mandates relative to built-in fire protection.

There has been other opposition as well, although maybe not as obvious. Each year, more than 3,000 people in the United States die in residential fires, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the United States Fire Administration.¹ This loss is significant when compared to many other causes of deaths in areas that are more closely regulated by our government, such as the airline industry.

Fire loss statistics have remained relatively constant during the past 30 years despite the fact that studies have suggested that sprinklers could reduce the number of fire fatalities by as much as 80 percent.² In our country, which routinely regulates industries in the interest of public safety, a reasonable question would be, "Why are new homes in the United States not required to install automatic fire sprinklers or automatic fire alarms?"

Installing automatic sprinklers in residential structures was first considered in 1973, when the NFPA established a committee to develop a code related to sprinklers. Sprinklers had been used in commercial properties for a long time, but the lack of a standard or code for residential buildings indicated that installation was not even a consideration for single-family dwellings.³

RESIDENTIAL vs. NONRESIDENTIAL FIRES

The fire service in general has an outstanding track record regarding fire prevention in structures other than residential, primarily because of strong code enforcement, technological advances, and the fact that fire departments have the authority to impose regulations on commercial properties. This authority is much more restricted with regard to residential structures. You could speculate that society has chosen to leave people alone, within reason, when they are at home while increasing regulations for public areas to protect the masses.

Many of the improvements in fire safety in commercial and industrial properties have resulted from disastrous fires. For example, regulations for public assembly occupancies were implemented as a result of the Coconut Grove fire in Boston in 1942 and the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire in Kentucky in 1977.⁴ Not only were codes made more stringent, but the attention given to similar structures by fire prevention bureaus around the country fostered new approaches to preventing similar fires, including requiring automatic fire sprinkler systems in these and similar occupancies.

Displaying 1/4 Page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next>
View Article as Single page