VILLAGE OF CLARENDON HILLS
SINGLE FAMILY FIRE SUPPRESSION
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
CLARIFICATIONS
1.
The residential sprinkler system ordinance was passed too fast.
The concept was first addressed on May 1, 2000 at a Public Safety Committee Meeting. Prior to the
meeting, notice appeared in the May 2000 issue of Trustee Topics under “Agenda Matters”. In
addition, letters were sent to forty-six builders advising them of the May 1 meeting and proposed
sprinkler regulations.
A Special Public Safety Committee meeting was scheduled for June 13, 2000 just to discuss the
sprinkler ordinance. Notice of the special meeting appeared in the June 2000 issue of Trustee Topics
under “Agenda Matters”. Another forty-six letters were sent to builders prior to the meeting.
Prior to the adoption of the ordinance in August, a front page article appeared in the August 2000
issue of Trustee Topics and under “Agenda Matters”. There was no July issue of Trustee Topics.
In addition to Village initiated communication, there were many articles and editorials in the local
newspapers concerning the sprinkler ordinance. Various people addressed the Village Board on the
ordinance at the June and August meetings.
2.
The facts presented were grossly misleading.
The information contained on the August 2000 issue of Trustee Topics utilized cost information
obtained from the National Fire Sprinkler Association and permitted square footage for “typical”
homes currently being built in the Village. The costs shown, $1.38 to $1.50 per square foot, were
offered several times at meetings as current and valid. The square footage, 3,600 square feet,
reflects the average square footage calculation for building permits.
Several factors have contributed to allegations that costs were misrepresented in the August 2000
newsletter. First, the area being sprinklered in many cases exceeds 3,600 square feet. The area
sprinklered includes basement and perhaps attic spaces that are not included in permit calculations.
As a result, the overall cost is much greater that the $4,968 to $5,400 given in Trustee Topics.
Second, the price given in Trustee Topics was a generalization and could not include elements of a
system designed for a specific home. As homeowners are designing their homes and sprinkler
systems are being designed specifically for those homes, things like the need for pumps are being
identified. Every sprinkler system will not require a pump, but for those that do additional costs will be
incurred.
In the past, similar information has been provided in Trustee Topics for the property tax and road
program. It is impossible to portray the unique cost for each home. A “typical” case is given with the
underlying facts. This allows a resident to apply those facts to their specific circumstances and get a
more realistic cost. The criticisms of the sprinkler costs are similar to those received with property tax
and road program estimates.
1
3.
Asked for a moratorium on residential sprinkler systems.
Residential sprinkling requirements were established by ordinance and any cessation in application of
the ordinance would have to also be done by ordinance. A moratorium ordinance would bar
application of the ordinance for a limited period of time and would identify specific action to be taken
during that period of time. Legal counsel has advised that a moratorium ordinance cannot appear to
be arbitrary and must contain the noted specifics.
An alternative for consideration if the limitation on time needed for a moratorium is a problem would
be to repeal. The original ordinance could be repealed and reintroduced, if desired, with any
amendments. Repeal of the ordinance would be achieved through passage of an ordinance.
4.
Adverse selection (new homes vs. older/existing homes).
Building codes are in place to ensure that buildings are built in a safe manner and they protect their
occupants from danger. All building codes were developed from information received regarding
construction problems, fires, occupant and firefighter injuries and deaths, etc.
All things that a builder incorporates into the house regarding fire and/or safety are usually required
by a building code. They don’t put these items in because they want to. Without building codes a lot
of these features would not be constructed into the house.
There are many areas across the country that do not require many things that are required here.
Things such as hard conduit piping, hard copper piping, secondary exits from basements, hard wired
smoke detectors, carbon monoxide detectors, etc.
All of these things are in place to insure that the building is safe from a construction and life safety
standpoint. A residential sprinkler system serves the same purpose, but takes it a step farther by
extinguishing the fire. No other code requirement is designed to actually extinguish a fire.
Amendments to building and other codes are typically applied to new applicants. Code amendments
are not typically applied retroactively to existing single family homes. The amendments to the
plumbing and electrical codes currently under consideration will be applied to all new applicants for
permits. They will not be retroactively applied to every home in the Village. Over time the community
moves toward compliance through new construction and remodeling.
Infrequently codes are retroactively applied. An example would be code requirements for installation
of fire alarm systems and rapid entry systems (Knox Boxes) in certain occupancies. These systems
were required to be installed in all covered occupancies over a specified period of time. Single family
homes were not required to comply, and generally the places required to install these systems were
either multi-family dwellings or places of business where the safety of the general public was a
concern.
5.
Value of sprinklered homes – marketability.
The impact of sprinkler systems on the value of homes in Clarendon Hills is speculative. Clearly,
features that help protect the value of a home, like alarm systems, generally add value to a home.
The value of a sprinkler system may vary from buyer to buyer. It seems doubtful, however, that
sprinkler systems in new homes will deter prospective residents from locating in Clarendon Hills.
Most of the homebuyers who have raised concerns about the sprinkler requirement are residents who
currently live in town – not builders wanting to construct a home for an unknown, future buyer.
2
In Scottsdale, Arizona the homes equipped with sprinklered systems are selling for higher prices and
quicker than homes that are not equipped with a sprinkler system. In Barrington, Illinois the Lakewood
Homes development projected that it would take 2-1/2 years to sell all forty six (46) homes in this
development. All of the homes in this development were sold in thirteen (13) months.
Sprinkler systems will require some maintenance. In this they are no different that the furnaces,
water heaters, fireplaces, lawn sprinklers, and other home features requiring periodic maintenance.
The mere fact that maintenance is required seems unlikely to negatively impact home values. Time
will tell if the sprinkler systems will leak or otherwise cause problems. To date, compelling
information about leaks, failures or other malfunctions has not been provided.
6.
Cost concerns – cost analysis.
Table 1 provides an analysis of the sprinkler system proposals received to date on twelve new
residences. This includes all the sprinkler plans submitted to date, together with bids volunteered by
contractors and owners of projects in the planning stage, and some comparison bids received by
builders prior to the commencement date of the ordinance. The names and addresses are withheld
for privacy reasons. The table lists the number of square feet determined for the building permit (as
defined in the zoning ordinance, generally the first and second floors) and the total square feet
sprinkled (including all basements and any finished portions of attics). The bids are presented, with
an indication of whether a pump was required and its cost, if separate. The total bid price per square
foot is determined both on the permit square feet and the actually sprinklered square feet. The
average total bid price was $9,797 per house, or $2.54 per permitted square foot, or $1.63 per
sprinklered square foot. The range per sprinklered square foot was $1.32 to $2.06. Interestingly, the
presence of the pump did not appear to raise the unit cost significantly, although the average price of
a pump as a bid alternate was $1,483.
TABLE 1
HOUSE #
1*
2*
3*
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
AVERAGE
SPKLR
CO. PMT. SF SPKL. SF
A
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
B
A
A
B
BASE BID PUMP ?
PUMP BID
TOTAL BID $/PMT SF $/SPKL SF
4,200
4,376
4,548
3,841
2,344
3,466
5,033
3,722
2,923
3,528
5,097
3,733
6,200
6,720
7,435
5,733
3,572
5,463
7,911
5,526
4,811
5,612
7,568
6,265
$ 8,900.00
$11,540.00
$12,085.00
$ 7,860.00
$ 6,200.00
$11,250.00
$10,350.00
$10,200.00
$ 8,300.00
$ 7,430.00
$ 9,250.00
$ 9,750.00
N
$
- $ 8,900.00 $ 2.12
N
$
- $11,540.00 $ 2.64
N
$
- $12,085.00 $ 2.66
Y $1,475.00 $ 9,335.00 $ 2.43
N
$
- $ 6,200.00 $ 2.65
INCL.
$
- $11,250.00 $ 3.25
Y $1,475.00 $11,825.00 $ 2.35
INCL.
$
- $10,200.00 $ 2.74
INCL.
$
- $ 8,300.00 $ 2.84
N
$
- $ 7,430.00 $ 2.11
Y $1,500.00 $10,750.00 $ 2.11
INCL.
$
- $ 9,750.00 $ 2.61
3,901
6,068 $ 9,426.25
$1,483.33 $ 9,797.08 $ 2.54
* Comparison figures--bids for houses where sprinklers not required.
3
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
1.44
1.72
1.63
1.63
1.74
2.06
1.49
1.85
1.73
1.32
1.42
1.56
$ 1.63
7.
Sprinkler plan review – explore delays.
When the sprinkler requirement was passed, staff anticipated that there would be certain delays in
preparing and reviewing another set of plans for each new house. The delays that some builders and
homeowners are experiencing are of two types: The extra time it takes to provide a full submittal and
the time it takes for the Village’s fire safety consultant to review the plans submitted.
It is apparent that there has been a learning curve on the part of the general contractors as they work
their way through getting sprinkler system bids, choosing a sprinkler contractor, and getting plans
prepared by the sprinkler contractor. Staff made every effort to work with the contractors and
homeowners to make the process go smoothly. We supplied lists of sprinkler association contractors,
as well as several types of information on the new code requirements. We foresaw that the sprinkler
plans would likely not be available at the time of permit submittal. Although we require a full submittal,
we accepted the building permit applications without the Sprinkler plans. We explained, however, that
the applicants should not wait to pick up their permit to start the sprinkler plans, since we could not
issue more than a foundation permit without approved sprinkler plans.
Because the sprinkler plans require a specialized knowledge to review, staff has used the same fire
safety consultant that has reviewed commercial and multi-family sprinkler plans for us for several
years. The firm performs reviews for numerous municipalities and has performed satisfactorily for us
in the past. While only a few residential sprinkler plans have been reviewed to for us date, we find the
average turnaround time (including mailings) is currently two to three weeks. This is not at all unusual
for a specialized review. It is worth noting that it is substantially longer than the review periods
builders experience from our other plan reviewer and engineer. Those consultants usually return
comments in one to five working days, which is exceptional. We have also noticed that about half of
the sprinkler plans have required resubmittal, which entails a second review.
It appears that some applicants did not allow sufficient time in their schedule to have a full set of
sprinkler plans prepared, reviewed and approved without creating a delay in their projects. This may
change with greater experience. One builder brought a complete set of sprinkler plans with the initial
permit submittal. We were able to issue a full building permit, since the sprinkler plan review took no
longer than the remainder of the review. There will always be new homebuilders and homeowners
who general their own projects, however, who run into delays due to their inexperience with sprinkler
systems.
8.
Third floor height concerns – zoning restrictions.
The point was made that Fire Department concerns with fighting fires in homes that are as tall as
recently built homes might be reduced if changes contemplated by the Zoning Board of Appeals/Plan
Commission (ZBA/PC) are instituted. The ZBA/PC has been reviewing bulk regulations since a joint
workshop with the Village Board in July 2000. After several months’ deliberation, they have reached a
consensus that the definition of “height” in the Zoning Ordinance should be returned to measure the
distance to the highest peak or ridge of the building. In the R-1 District, they will recommend that
maximum height be set at 37.5 feet. This is approximately four feet lower than the highest peak
height to be built recently under the current provisions.
It is believed that the proposed changes will not materially address the fire department concerns.
The ZBA/PC will also recommend counting all attic space over seven feet, as well as attics with bath
facilities, as floor area, which may discourage third floor living spaces or reduce the overall bulk of
homes being constructed.
4
9.
Extra construction costs associated with sprinkler systems.
In the process of installing another mechanical system in a residence, some extra costs will be
incurred, particularly as it affects the work of other trades. These include: framing, drywall, plumbing,
electrical and, possibly, security contractors. While it is impossible for staff to perform statistically
significant research on this matter, anecdotal evidence is available from persons who have completed
installation. If a second floor ceiling is vaulted, or for some other reason requires installation of a
sprinkler pipe in the attic, the framer may have to build a box around the pipe and heavily insulate it.
That cost is estimated at up to $300. The sprinkler contractors are not allowed to perform certain
aspects of the installation, such as wiring the flow switch, and alarm horn and/or strobe. A licensed
electrician may charge approximately $300 to install these devices on a dedicated circuit. A licensed
plumber must provide the “T” connection for the sprinkler system from the water service line before
the meter. The charge for this may be $100 to $200. Optional connections between the sprinkler
system and a security system may also be incorporated. These devices may include interior fire
alarms and linkage to the fire department alarm board or a private monitoring system. These costs
vary greatly, but were estimated between $700 and $9,000. Monthly monitoring service costs could
be in the area of $30, although that payment may include burglar as well as flow switch monitoring.
Miscellaneous changes to drywall and decorating jobs should total less than $100. Should the owner
opt for a loop within the system that is protected by anti-freeze, one bid received was for $3,250. This
amount could vary widely. Village review fees are $300, which includes one or two reviews and two
inspections.
In summary, the typical additional (one-time) construction costs are:
TABLE 2
10.
REQUIRED
Electrician
Plumber
Drywall Installer
Village Sprinkler Review
$300
$100-200
$0-100
$300
TOTAL (ESTIMATE)
$700-900
OPTIONAL
Box/Insulate Ceiling Pipe
$300
Connect to Security System $700-9000
Anti-Freeze Loop
$3000-4000
VARIABLE
Water pressure/flow rates/pumps/other installation options.
Portions of the Village water system have lower or higher static (pressure without flow) water
pressures than others. The range in pressure throughout the Village is from 30-52 psi depending on
location. Water pressure is dictated by the height of our (2) water towers and the relation in elevation
of the specific properties. Pressure varies by (1 psi) for every (2.31) feet in elevation change.
In some locations, the combination of pressure, service line diameter, distance to the sprinkler heads
and interior pipe diameter, results in a water pressure at the most remote heads that is insufficient to
fully activate the sprinkler heads with a recommended margin of safety. In these instances, the
sprinkler contractors have requested a larger water service or fire pump.
A larger service line diameter results in less loss of residual (flowing water) water pressure due to
friction. The Village’s fire safety consultant has indicated that in addition to the 1 ½” service line or
the addition of a fire pump, some installations may meet the minimum pressure by increasing the
diameter of the internal sprinkler pipes (typically 1” to 1 ¼”).
In summary, the goal to effectively operate the fire sprinkler system is to provide a combination of
adequate water volume and pressure to the most remote sprinkler heads that meets standards. This
goal may be meet by increasing the service line diameter to 1 ½”, including a fire pump or increasing
the internal plumbing to 1 ¼” vs. 1” pipe. Each location would need to be evaluated.
5
11.
Upgrading water services to 1-1/2”.
At the present time, the Village requires all new construction to install a minimum 1” service. This
water service is replacing the existing ½” – ¾” services. There have been a few 1 ½” services
installed under special circumstances. There have been requests to increase the service diameter
from 1” to 1 ½” by some fire sprinkler contractors. The following are concerns as it relates to the
delivery of water to customers and maintenance of these 1 ½” services in the future.
The larger 1 ½” service will allow more volume of water to that customer. This additional volume is
not due to increased pressure provided by the larger pipe, but less friction loss making more volume
available. This is not a concern for regular domestic use, but the volume that will be made available
for lawn irrigation systems.
Lawn irrigations systems are the largest draw on the water system in the summer months. Our water
main system has 63% pipes of 6” in diameter or less. Continued installations of 1 ½” services with
irrigation systems on these 6” or less water mains are a concern for future demands.
The larger 1 ½” services will also create higher maintenance and installation costs. Parts for 1 ½” are
double the cost of 1” and substantially more labor intensive for repairs (see table 3). Also, 1 ½”
services cannot be directly tapped into the water main and require a tapping sleeve that has a history
of deterioration over time. The following are the estimated costs for new construction for the various
service sizes. These costs do not reflect the base labor, profit, equipment or restoration costs, but
reflect additional costs over 1” services. Also, these prices do not reflect internal plumbing costs that
would be required with the larger diameter services.
TABLE 3
Item
Service Set
(K) Copper 100’
*Tap Clamp (6”)
Tap Fee
Extra Labor
Total
Difference vs. 1”
1”
**1 1/4”
1 1/2”
80.00
175.00
N/A
200.00
0.00
$455.00
125.00
240.00
155.00
300.00
300.00
$1,120.00
140.00
305.00
140.00
300.00
600.00
$1,485.00
$0.00
**$665.00
$1,030.00
Information provided by US Filter Distribution & HR Excavating
*
All taps over 1” require a tapping sleeve. These costs are for 6” diameter water mains, add an
additional $25.00 in 2” increments for larger diameter water mains.
** Although 1 ¼” water service materials are manufactured, these parts are not widely stocked
and/or readily available.
In summary, considering the information provided 1” water services are preferred.
12.
Anti-freeze in sprinkler systems deteriorates joints.
The concern was raised that the plastic (CPVC) pipe joints would leak when exposed to anti-freeze.
The Village fire safety consultant advises that CPVC is not rated for use in anti-freeze systems. Any
anti-freeze system would require the use of steel or copper pipes specifically listed by a recognized
testing agency, such as UL, for that purpose.
6
13.
PVC Pipe leaks.
New sprinkler systems must be tested by pressurizing them for at least 15 minutes during the
inspection. This is intended to detect any leaks. A report from a builder familiar with the system
indicate that any leaks typically manifest themselves during construction or shortly thereafter,
although they are uncommon.
The possibility of accidental damage to the pipes exists, much like any piping or conduit located in
walls or ceilings. The installer should place stud protectors, metal bands, over the points where the
pipes penetrate the studs. This prevents nailing into the pipes at those points. Of course it is possible
to miss the stud and damage a pipe. Steel pipes would be less likely to incur damage, but plastic
pipes could be damaged. It is recommended that someone in the home keep a copy of the sprinkler
diagram and proceed with caution when hanging pictures, etc. A test hole should be drilled carefully
before nailing in the vicinity of pipes.
Staff recommends that along with the internal flow alarms, an audio-visual alarm also be installed and
located on the outside of the house.
14.
Electric heating elements on sprinkler pipes.
Wrapping plastic piping in cold locations with electric heat tape is not permitted, as the pipe materials
are not listed for that installation. Further, it is not good practice to place electric heating elements
close to the pipes, in case of potential leaks or discharges.
The NFPA Sprinkler Systems Handbook recommends that the pipes be insulated by normal means
with the following special considerations:
a) batts should be placed snugly over the joists so no air gaps exist,
b) insulation should be placed snugly the pipes, without compressing the insulation, and
c) a second layer of insulation should be laid over the length of the pipe.
Other approaches have been recommended by sprinkler installers, including framing a box above the
pipe to enclose the extra insulation. Little information is available on the advisability or necessity of
installing special heaters or vents from the second floor ceiling to add heat to these enclosures. The
most difficult situations appear to be where sprinklers are required over a cathedral, vaulted or tray
ceiling. In these cases, there may be inadequate room for a second layer of insulation above the
piping.
15.
Contamination concerns.
On 2/8/01, contact was made with the District IEPA office. They were asked what type of backflow
devices are required for a residential fire sprinkler system. The results are as follows:
Village Code Chapter 9, Section 9.25, has cross connection control provisions currently in effect.
This code covers the requirements necessary if there is a hazardous system as defined by the EPA
attached to the public water supply system. A residential fire sprinkler system is considered a
hazardous system by the EPA, and is required to have a backflow device.
The purpose of a backflow device is to prevent water that is not drinking quality (non-potable), from
entering the public water supply. This device isolates the contaminated non-potable system and does
not allow this water to travel back into the public water supply.
7
The minimum, IEPA requirement is a Double Detector Check valve “Febco 805y or equivalent”. This
device is commonly installed in commercial and industrial fire sprinkler systems. The advantages to
this device is that it will allow more water available to the sprinkler system than other devices and
may eliminate the need for a fire pump or over sizing the pipes. The owner of this device is required
to have it tested annually by a certified cross connection control device inspector (CCCDI) and
records submitted to the Village.
The recommended IEPA backflow device is a reduced pressure zone backflow preventer (RPZ)
“Febco 825 or equivalent”. This device is considered the most reliable backflow preventer. This unit
not only controls the direction of water flow in the system, but will also dump the water to atmosphere
if the pressure is higher on the sprinkler side of the system than the public water supply side. The
down side of this device is the pressure loss to provide this protection may require a fire pump. This
device is also more expensive (approx $100) and requires a drain at the location that is installed.
This is the device that is currently required with all lawn irrigation systems in the Village. The owner of
this device is required to have it tested annually by a certified cross connection control device
inspector (CCCDI) and records submitted to Village.
Out of the four towns contacted that have residential fire sprinkler systems, only one requires a RPZ.
The Village has the option to require a double detector check valve or RPZ. The staff recommends
that the use of antifreeze or any other chemicals should be prohibited in all residential applications.
16.
PVC pipe leaching.
The construction materials identified in NFPA 13D table 3-3.1 and 3-3.2, including listed steel,
copper, CPVC, and PB plastic, are acceptable for residential fire sprinkler systems. The IEPA does
not prohibit these materials and are currently acceptable for fire sprinkler applications.
In summary, all pipe as currently presented meets IEPA standards and is acceptable for these
applications.
17.
Backflow devices – double check and/or RPZ annual service costs.
All residential sprinkler systems require backflow protection. The Illinois Plumbing Code requires all
sprinkler systems to be installed with a double detector check. If a system contains anti-freeze or any
other chemicals, (which we don’t recommend), it must be installed with an RPZ device. Double
detector check valves are preferred for sprinkler systems because they do not reduce the operating
pressure as much as an RPZ does.
Both double detector check valves and RPZ devices should be inspected annually, tested, adjusted,
and certified by a trained and certified technician. This is normally done by a private company.
Listed below are prices from a few of the many plumbing companies in the Chicago area that provide
this service.
Chicago Backflow
RPZ Testing Company
Mathis Plumbing
708-389-5600
708-599-7493
708-599-7300
$84.00
$115.00
$115.00
1-1/2” or less
1-1/2” or less
1-1/2” or less
This service includes travel time, coming to site to test, clean, calibrate, and certify device. This also
includes the certification paper work for the homeowner and the mailing of a copy of this paper work
to the building or water departments. One company mentioned that if several residents had their
backflow preventers done on the same day it is possible to reduce this cost by about 1/3. This cost
per device could also be reduced when a resident also has an RPZ for their lawn sprinkler system.
8
The fire station currently has two RPZ devices, and the Public Works Building has one double
detector check valve and one RPZ device installed in the buildings. The company doing the testing
automatically comes out once per year and performs this service as explained above.
Many of the homes that have been constructed in the village in recent years have underground lawn
sprinkler systems. These homes have RPZ devices installed to prevent backflow from the sprinkler
system.
18.
Long term maintenance and servicing costs.
Residential and Commercial sprinkler systems require very little maintenance over the life of the
system. There are currently approximately twenty five (25) commercial sprinkler systems in various
buildings within the village. Some of these systems are 50 to 60 years old. These systems actually
require less maintenance than a smoke detection system.
The residential sprinkler system standard does not require any maintenance or servicing that is
required to be done by a service company. The standard does state that the owner or manager
should perform a visual inspection of the system to insure that no sprinkler heads have been painted
or blocked, the standard also states that the system should be flow tested.
The visual inspection and flow testing can be done by the homeowner if they choose. In our initial
proposal for residential sprinkler systems, it was stated that the on duty fire department personnel will
conduct a voluntary inspection of the residential sprinkler system which would include the visual
inspections and the flow tests as outlined in the standard.
These inspections and tests could be performed seven (7) days per week during the day or evening
hours depending on what is convenient to the homeowner. The fire prevention bureau is already
maintaining a log of sprinklered single-family homes containing the dates of installations, inspections,
etc.
19.
Freezing pipes in outside walls or unheated attic spaces.
Sprinkler contractors will attempt to avoid installing any sprinkler system piping in any outside wall or
unheated area such as an attic. Most sprinkler system installations can be designed to not require
the installation of the sprinkler piping in unheated attic areas or outside walls. The second floor of the
homes typically has sidewall heads mounted on the walls about 4” below the ceiling level. This
eliminates the need to install piping in the attic area. Should there have to be piping installed in
unheated areas, see #14 for discussion about recommended insulation techniques.
20.
Sprinklers in attic storage areas.
According to NFPA 13D, attic areas used as storage areas shall be protected by a sprinkler system.
Generally attics in houses are not designed to be storage areas. Using these areas for storage puts
added weight that is sometimes concentrated in small areas that were not designed to handle that
type of load. Also storage in attics hinders the fire department when they want to perform roof
ventilation. However if the attic is used for storage, it will be required to be sprinklered.
9
21.
Detection systems instead of suppression systems.
While the use of fire and smoke detection systems in homes is encouraged, they do not have the
capability to extinguish a fire. Smoke detection devices are still needed and required in a singlefamily home equipped with a sprinkler system. A smoke detection system will give the earliest
warning of a fire. Smoke detection systems were designed to alert the occupants as early as
possible so that they have sufficient warning to escape from the structure.
With the installation of a smoke detection system and a fire sprinkler system you will have a system
that will detect the fire and/or smoke early allowing the residents to escape from the house, and also
a system that will extinguish the fire when it is still in the early stages of fire involvement. The
combination of these systems will provide life safety and also limit the damage to the structure and its
contents.
22.
Limited number of sprinkler contractors.
The twenty five (25) sprinkler contractors listed in the 2000 Illinois Fire Sprinkler Directory were
contacted by telephone. Fourteen (14) of the companies stated that they do perform sprinkler
installations in residential single family homes, Nine (9) of the companies do not perform single family
sprinkler work, One (1) company does not do residential at this time, but is considering it, and One (1)
company gave us no response.
Listed below are the companies that do and do not perform residential single-family sprinkler system
installations. The Village in no way endorses or recommends the use of any of these companies.
YES
Acme Sprinkler Service Company
Advanced Fire Protection Co.
Ahern Fire Protection
Alliance Fire Protection
Apollo Fire Protection
Central States Automatic Sprinklers, Inc.
Century Automatic Sprinkler
Cybor Fire Protection Co.
F.E. Moran, Inc. Fire Protection
Global Fire Protection Co.
Grinnell Fire Protection Systems
McDaniel Fire Systems, Inc.
United States Fire Protection of Illinois
Windy City Fire Protection, Inc.
NO
C.L. Doucette, Inc.
Cannon Fire Protection Company
Cecchin Plumbing and Heating Co.
Fire Control, Inc.
Fire Protection Company
Great Lakes Plumbing & Heating Co
Guardian Fire Protection
Sentinal Fire Protection Co.
Superior Mechanical Systems, Inc.
Universal Fire Protection, LTD does not currently perform single-family installations, however they
are considering it. Highland Fire Protection did not get back to us with a response to our questions.
Please note that we recently acquired another listing of sixty nine (69) sprinkler companies, however
we have not had time to call these companies to inquire how many of them perform residential single
family work.
10
23.
PVC pipes burning – hazardous vapors
It is true that when Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) burns it emits hazardous vapors. Fire sprinkler pipes
are Chlorinated Poly Vinyl Chloride (CPVC). According to the manufacturer, the CPVC piping has an
ignition temperature of 900 degrees Fahrenheit. Therefore hazardous vapors would not be emitted
until the pipe reaches a temperature of at least 900 degrees Fehrenheit.
Many products in the home are also constructed using PVC materials such as chair padding, counter
top materials, various plastic products, etc. Also all of the waste plumbing, such as sink drains,
bathtub drains, shower drains, etc. in the homes built today are the same type of PVC pipe as used in
a sprinkler system. Most of the PVC sprinkler piping would be protected and enclosed by fire rated
drywall, where the majority of the PVC waste is exposed more to a fire.
If a fire were to get so intense that it began to burn any of the PVC waste or sprinkler piping in the
house, the heat would be so great that a human would not be able to survive in that atmosphere.
Notre Dame University is currently in the process of installing residential sprinkler systems in all of its
residence halls where students reside. All piping for these systems is PVC. The area sprinklered will
total approximately 751,000 square feet.
24.
Fire Department response and suppression activities for fires.
By the time a fire is discovered it already has burned for approximately 2-3 minutes. After the fire
department is notified it will take them another 3-6 minutes to arrive on the scene and another 2-3
minutes to don their SCBA units, pull off hoses, and make entry into the structure, and possibly
another 2-3 minutes to locate and begin extinguishment of the fire. Therefore the total time from the
inception of the fire to the time the fire department will begin actual extinguishments will be at least 10
minutes. These time ranges were determined by reviewing the fire and investigation reports from
several fires in single-family homes in the village.
At this point the fire department will be using two fire hoses that flow approximately 150 gallons per
minute each. The total water needed to extinguish this fire could be as much as 4,000 gallons or
more of water. At the same time there would be significant smoke, heat, fire and water damage to
this structure, its furnishings, and contents. This fire would not allow the residents to move back into
this house for several months. Damage to the house, contents, and personal belongings would most
likely have been substantial.
This type of fire would involve about 9-12 firefighters entering this structure and placing themselves in
an extremely high risk situation that could involve their injury or death. One of the greatest risks is
when a flashover occurs. There have been very few firefighters that have experienced a flashover
who lived to tell about it. Flashover can generally occur about 8 to 12 minutes into the fire. This is
the time period the firefighters will begin entry into the structure. We have videotape showing what a
flashover is and when it can occur. This portion of the videotape takes only about 4 minutes to view.
If this home had had a residential sprinkler system the sprinkler head would have activated when the
fire was still small, extinguished the fire or held in check until the fire department finished
extinguishment, would have had minimal damage to the residence, and would not have placed the
firefighters lives in danger.
11
25.
Iron sprinkler pipes in the basement portions of the home.
In the NFPA 13D standard it requires hard metal pipe be installed in the basement areas in the ceiling
if the basement is to remain unfinished. The reason for this requirement is that metal pipe is much
stronger and would withstand any potential abuses that might occur in an unfinished basement. The
preferred material for these pipes is copper, which is the same material used for domestic water
piping in the house. Most companies do not use iron pipe for this purpose because the labor time
needed to cut and thread it gets too expensive.
26.
Long Grove fire incidents in sprinklered homes.
It was brought up that there was a fire in Long Grove in a sprinklered house on January 3, 2001. This
house did sustain significant damage. Staff spoke with Fire Marshal Gregg Cook of the Long Grove
Fire Department to determine why the sprinkler system did not extinguish the fire.
He stated that the fire started in the garage area and then the fire traveled above into several void
spaces that existed because of an addition to the house, which then allowed the fire to extend into the
attic area. As the fire progressed in the garage and began to spread through the entire attic area it
became too large to be controlled by the sprinkler system when the roof collapsed. It was also
confirmed that the resident took the time to remove 2 cars from the garage before calling the fire
department.
It is his feeling that if proper construction techniques regarding fire stops in the proper places were
used the fire would have been a much smaller incident and the sprinkler system would have
functioned properly within the living areas of the house.
This fire on January 3, 2001 should not be confused with another fire that occurred in a sprinklered
home in Long Grove around Thanksgiving 2000. That fire started in a child’s bedroom filled with
stuffed animals. The home had a residential fire sprinkler system installed according to the NFPA
13D standard. The smoke detector activated alerting the mother. She was able to get her son and
his friends out of the basement with the help of another parent. The parent then attempted to put the
fire out with fire extinguishers without success. Fortunately, the fire sprinkler system controlled the
blaze, except for smoldering under the bed, which the fire department extinguished upon arrival.
According to Fire Marshal Gregg Cook, without the fire sprinkler system, the fire would have spread
beyond the bedroom as it flashed over causing major fire, smoke and water damage. No residents
were killed or injured, and there was no loss of occupancy.
27.
Sprinkler systems located in hazardous areas only.
Fire origins in hazardous areas do not account for the majority of fires. Table 4 indicates the areas of
fire origins.
Staff questions the effectiveness of limiting sprinkler systems to select areas of homes.
12
TABLE 4
APPENDIX A
13D
Table A-1-2(b) Fires and Associated Deaths and Injuries in Dwellings, Duplexes, and Manufactured
Homes by Area of Origin: Annual Average of 1986-1990 Structure Fires Reported to U.S. Fire
Departments
Area of Origin
Civilian
Deaths
Living room, family room, or den
1,330
Bedroom
919
Kitchen
541
Dining room
83
Heating equipment room or area
62
Hallway or corridor
48
Laundry room or area
47
Garage or carport*
45
Bathroom
44
Unclassified structural area
43
Crawl space or substructure space
41
Multiple areas
41
Ceiling/floor assembly or concealed space 32
Wall assembly or concealed space
27
Closet
23
Exterior balcony or open porch
22
Exterior wall surface
22
Unclassified area
21
Attic or ceiling/roof assembly
21
or concealed space
Tool room or other supply storage
20
room or area
Lobby or entrance way
17
Interior stairway
17
Chimney
17
Unclassified function area
17
Unclassified storage area
14
Area not applicable
11
Exterior stairway
8
Lawn or field
7
Trash room or area
5
Product storage area
5
Unclassified means of egress
5
Unclassified service or equipment area
4
Library
3
Other known area
26
Total
3,589
Civilian
Percent
Fires
Percent
Injuries Percent
37.1
25.6
15.1
2.3
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
42,600
50,200
92,670
3,780
15,130
3,690
15,370
14,580
8,040
4,530
11,200
3,350
3,470
7,090
5,020
5,570
14,620
2,590
10,740
10.5
12.4
22.9
0.9
3.7
0.9
3.8
3.6
2.0
1.1
2.8
0.8
0.9
1.8
1.2
1.4
3.6
0.6
2.7
2,546
3,250
3,987
189
374
155
363
524
271
104
317
96
64
93
186
121
118
87
98
18.6
23.7
29.1
1.4
2.7
1.1
2.7
3.8
2.0
0.8
2.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.5
4,160
1.0
133
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.7
100.0
1,410
1,100
60,530
1,090
2,460
1,180
1,090
1,670
1,140
780
610
380
180
12,880
404,900
0.3
0.3
14.9
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
3.2
100.0
44
41
75
43
80
22
25
24
14
23
15
12
11
195
13,691
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0
1.4
100.0
Note: Fires are estimated to the nearest 10; civilian deaths and injuries are estimated to the nearest 1.
* Does not include dwelling garages coded as a separate property, which averaged 19 deaths, 259
injuries, and 21,170 fires per year.
Source: 1986-1990 NFIRS and NFPA survey.
13
28.
Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition videotape misleading.
The tape was made using a real house located in Winfield, Illinois. The furnishings and furniture in
this house were real and similar to that found in any other home.
The Fire Department has photographs and information about some test burns showing sprinklered
and un-sprinklered rooms that was done by the Lombard Fire Department recently.
29.
Construction materials in video tape different than normal house.
Mr. Tom Lia, Executive Director of the Northern Illinois Sprinkler Advisory Board, participated in the
burning of this house and he stated that the house used was of normal construction and all of the
furnishings used were purchased or taken from other houses. The furnishings and furniture were
what you would see in a normal house.
30.
Water damage from sprinkler system activations.
When a sprinkler head activates it will normally produce approximately 8-14 gallons per minute of
water flow. If a sprinkler head activated due to a fire, this sprinkler head would normally only be
operating for about 6-8 minutes. This would amount to about 48-112 gallons of water.
At that point the fire department would be arriving and would shut off the sprinkler system to keep
water damage to a minimum.
Homes that have sprinkler systems usually sustain less damage from fire, smoke, and water when a
sprinkler system activates for a fire. This damage is far less than the damage that would most likely
occur without the sprinkler system.
31.
Other communities that have sprinkler ordinances.
There are six (6) other communities in Illinois that currently have single-family residential sprinkler
ordinances in addition to Clarendon Hills. They are as follows:
Long Grove
Lake Barrington
Barrington
Hoffman Estates
Park Ridge
Wheeling
32.
Other area communities that are considering sprinkler ordinances.
According to Tom Lia, Executive Director of the Northern Illinois Sprinkler Advisory Board, he is
currently working with thirteen (13) communities in the Chicagoland area regarding possible sprinkler
ordinances for single family homes in their communities. He would not identify the communities by
name because most of them are still in the planning stages are not ready to present their plans in
public. Village staff has been contacted by three of these communities.
.
14
33.
Reasons that other communities have rescinded sprinkler ordinances.
Brought up at the meeting were a few towns in California that have rescinded their sprinkler
ordinances. Staff has contacted representatives from these communities. All of them mentioned that
the California Building Industry Association, (CBIA), placed a high level of pressure on the elected
officials in those communities to rescind their residential sprinkler ordinances. Most of the complaints
were related to the cost of the systems, making housing unaffordable, and the marketability of the
sprinklered homes.
One of the cities mentioned never rescinded their ordinance and it is still in full force as it has been for
approximately fifteen years. One of the other cities mentioned that the elected officials plan on
bringing the issue of a residential sprinkler ordinance up again for possible approval.
15