Action on sprinkler mandates
The good news is that during the state Legislature's first week there was significant movement toward toughening the state fire code, including mandating sprinkler systems in many existing commercial structures. We are particularly encouraged that two state senators whose communities have been dramatically impacted by horrendous fire tragedies are working to find common ground.
Sen. David Thomas of Greenville has been pushing for a sprinkler mandate in lodgings since six people died in a motel fire in his home county four years ago. Senate President Pro Tempore Glenn McConnell opposed that legislation at the time, contending that it was too sweeping, particularly in terms of historic bed and breakfasts. The deaths of nine city of Charleston firefighters last summer in the Sofa Super Store conflagration convinced the senator that the law does need tightening for existing commercial structures that pose a particular hazard or danger to firefighters. The deaths this fall of seven S.C. college students at a North Carolina beach house that had fire detectors but no sprinklers further focused legislative attention on the problem.
While House and Senate leaders are in step on the need to provide tax credits to those willing to retrofit existing buildings, there isn't yet unanimity on how far the Legislature should go in mandating the sprinklers. State law currently requires sprinklers in most new commercial and multi-family structures.
Sen. Thomas decided to start off the legislative year with a public hearing last week that was attended by fire officials from throughout the state and found significant support for commercial and industrial sprinkler mandates.
According to The State newspaper, Robert Stevenson of Greenwood, who attended on behalf of the S.C. State Association of Fire Chiefs, told the senators, "We don't want the deaths of nine brothers to be in vain." An officer of the S.C. Fire Marshals Association, Gary Mocarski, was quoted as saying, "The lessons are over, it's time for action."
Sen. Thomas tells us that the fire officials' testimony was extremely helpful and will play a major role in drafting final legislation. Despite some reports about their differences, Sen. Thomas said he and Sen. McConnell are working together and plan to amend the McConnell bill with language they both can endorse. While sprinklers would be mandated in some instances in commercial and industrial structures, he said it would depend on the square footage of the building and the types of materials being stored.
Sen. Thomas tells us he and other lawmakers were "stunned" to hear just how much utilities around the state are charging businesses to retrofit their buildings with sprinklers, an issue the legislation will address. There are, he said, a variety of fees that make the change-over too expensive. The legislation, he said, will require that fees "reflect the actual cost."
Another revelation, according to the senator, was a revision in the state law several years ago that forbids local governments from enacting tougher standards than the state. That option should be restored.
Of particular concern to the senator is the number of deaths from residential fires, spurring his determination to provide financial incentives for the installation of sprinklers in new and old residential dwellings. While there currently is no requirement for sprinklers in homes, he said that may change for large beach houses that can house numerous people.
The senator was particularly struck by a study by the Columbia Fire Department showing that over a 12-year period 55 people in that city had died in residential fires and another 300 were injured. The senator said he was considering installing sprinklers in his own home — particularly the kitchen and stairwells. The one thing that would stop him and other homeowners, he said, is the current size of impact fees, which need lowering around the state. "We need incentives, not disincentives," he noted.
Lawmakers should now have all the incentive they need to pass life-saving fire code legislation this year.
E-mail this story 
Printer-friendly version
Notice about comments:
The Post and Courier is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. The Post and Courier does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our Web site.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
Comments
This article has 0 comment(s)
