Mandated fire sprinklers would impose prohibitive costs
Barbara Williams' recent op-ed piece on fire sprinkler systems contained some information that should be more fully examined. While all of us should be able to agree that fire prevention and mitigation are a good thing, most of us would also agree that it is not always practical or necessary to do that which we otherwise agree to be a good thing. I believe making fire sprinklers mandatory for most residential occupancies to be a good example of that notion.
Mrs. Williams wrote that installing a fire sprinkler system in a residence would cost around $2 per square foot. I assume that she is relying on information that was given as testimony earlier this year in Columbia. That information is wildly inaccurate and fortunately it was recognized as such by many members of our General Assembly. If you take into consideration all costs involved in order to properly install a completed fire sprinkler system (FSS), then you should expect to pay not less than thrice that amount per square foot and most likely much more.
Consider this example: Last year one of my tenants needed to modify an existing fire sprinkler system. The tenant merely added some exposed sprinkler pipes and sprinkler heads in a fairly open, 1,216- square-foot space and his cost was $4,380, or $3.60 per square foot. Quite obviously a new, from-scratch system would have cost much more.
The basics of having an FSS installed involve all of the following:
1) A flow test must be conducted to determine if the supply source is capable of delivering enough volume at sufficient pressure to properly supply a system. If the property is in an area that is not served by a municipal water system that is capable of delivering sufficient volume and pressure, then the property owner would be faced with the extraordinary expense of building a water tower or other containment system to supply the system.
2) An engineer uses the flow test information as a basis for the design of the system. By system I am referring to the back-flow preventer to which the supply pipes are hooked up, the stand pipe (the part with all the valves and switches) and then the sprinkler pipes and heads. The smaller the house the greater the percentage of the spurious $2 per square foot figure that would be eaten up by just the engineer's fee.
3) Expect the back-flow preventer, stand pipe, sprinkler piping and sprinkler heads to cost, as a package, not less than $2 per square foot and most likely much more.
4) The system needs to be supplied with water. If the source is a municipal system, the property owner would once again need to hire the services of an engineer to design the supply line from the street to the building where it would tie into the back-flow preventer. The installation is typically handled by a utilities contractor.
Earlier this year, my company paid out over $13,000 for the design and installation of 130 feet of supply piping and valves or about $100 per linear foot The supply piping for a residence would not cost nearly so much, but it would not be inexpensive and that expense would be over and above the cost of the sprinkler system.
5) There are other additional expenses associated with a fire sprinkler system: Our commercial systems are required to be hooked up to a monitored fire control panel. That involves a monthly monitoring fee plus the cost of a dedicated telephone line.
It is required that the systems be inspected and tested at least annually. The homeowner could reasonably expect those items to add up to around $1,000 a year and to continue forever.
There are better and much less expensive ways to save lives and mitigate damages when a residence has a fire event. Every home should have properly working smoke detectors, fire extinguishers strategically located throughout the house, a fire evacuation plan and — duh — a fire prevention plan. When constructing new housing, one of the most effective and permanent fire control materials is fire rated drywall. It doesn't cost much more than regular dry wall and once it is in place there are no additional or continuing associated costs.
While I can understand and appreciate the emotions that are driving this issue, I am concerned that a reasonableness standard o r a cost-benefit analysis requirement might not be properly in play. We should always be cautious and reluctant when the words "mandate" or "regulation" are preceded by the word "government."
Walter D. Carr is a commercial real estate broker in Charleston.
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)
