Mandatory Residential Sprinklers: Cost vs. Benefit |
| The cost/benefit of a mandate of sprinkling requirements in new homes is a critically important question. Certainly, no one argues the cost/benefit of sprinkling requirements for buildings of mass occupancy: malls, office buildings and the like. Nationally recognized construction codes for many years have had such requirements.
For the first time, the codes require, beginning this year for townhouses and beginning next year for single family homes, mandatory residential sprinkler systems. Our home builders believe policy makers must address the cost/benefit question of this mandate. Every lost life is to be mourned. But to say, as some of our opponents have stated, that no cost is too great to save a life; well, we strongly question such a statement and urge you to also question it. The truth is, in our society, a cost-benefit analysis is always necessary on any public policy issue. Automobiles sold in this country are required to contain many safety devices: requirements on brakes, tires, seatbelts, airbags, etc. Yet nearly 30,000 plus Americans die every year in vehicle accidents. Certainly, policy makers could prevent those thousands of deaths by increasing safety standards in automobiles to the point that no one would ever die in a car crash, but then, of course, very few citizens would be able to afford to drive those super-engineered cars. Statistics published by the Fire Analysis and Research Division of the National Fire Protection Association show that if your home is equipped with a hard-wired smoke detector, as required in nationally recognized codes for many years, you have a 99.45% chance of surviving that fire. The argument regarding the cost/benefit of sprinklers comes down to less than six-tenths of 1%. During testimony in Commonwealth Court on March 1, PA Fire Commissioner Edward Mann was asked the following question: Is there a cost that you would consider too high for sprinkler systems a cost figure above which you would say sprinklers are too expensive and not worth it, given what they do? He answered no. But there is not unanimity among firefighters. Many have spoken to our members, questioning this mandate. Firefighters recognize that the absence of smoke alarms in existing homes is the number one cause of residential fire deaths. I urge you to copy and paste the link below into your internet browser and view a video news clip from WJAC-TV Altoona/Johnstown. It features an interview with Richland Township, Cambria County Assistant Fire Chief Jason Ober, who like many fire-fighting professionals is also concerned about this mandate and believe there are other public policy alternatives that make more sense. http://www.wjactv.com/news/22005695/detail.html |
| return to main news section |
 |