Steve:
Now that you mention it, I do recall that CA was one of the strongest proponents of residential sprinklers. I remember a case study of a local fire district (I think it was Carlsbad) mandating sprinklers, smoke detectors and heat detectors integrated into an alarm monitoring system for residential that reported to fire dispatch. The premise being that a smoke detector sending an alarm to the dispatch center could be verified with water flow and heat as an active structural fire so they knew what resources to commit to the incident. Allowing them to better manage staff and equipment. But that makes the Ghost Ship tragedy even more frightening. (if that’s possible) This occurred in a state that has a heightened consciousness of fire safety than many other jurisdictions. Of course it’s the same state and area in fact, as memory serves that brought us Dennis Frye gluing heads to the ceiling of a catholic grade school too. (We still have to pull ceiling tiles to prove there is pipe there) How many other “Ghost Ship’s” are out there waiting to happen? I’m glad to hear that some sense prevails in decisions to retrofit existing structures. I believe in this industries ability to save lives and property from fire. We don’t hear much about the incidents where sprinklers have saved a life or home. It’s sad that most home owners don’t realize they can protect their home and family from fire for the cost of replacement windows. Getting back to the question of whether sprinklers would have controlled the fire, I read a fire incident report once in Sprinkler Age Magazine where a system being installed and without sprinklers in place yet controlled a debris fire in the garage. The heat from the fire created a pin hole in the CPVC which caused enough of a spray to douse the fire. So even if it’s not the ideal system, if it’s in proper working order, anything is better than nothing. John Paulsen SET Crown Fire System Design Grove City, OH From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 4:22 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Ghostship Fire John: Industry, fire service and the OSFM have been working with ACWA (Association of California Water Agencies) and the at-large community of water purveyors for years to assure (to the greatest extent possible) that encumbrances to sprinkler system installations are removed. The two areas that intrude on pro-sprinkler interests the most are usurious fees for both large diameter services that are installed as a retrofit and upcharges to 1” meters for sprinklered SFD’s. Through legislation and lobbying, fee schedules for utility connections in new construction are closely overseen; this being California, there are all sorts of developer fees that are charged, and connecting to the water system is no different. But it’s a lot easier to drop $30K when it’s part of a $2M overall fee package than it would be to just fork it over “out of pocket” long after the building is built. New construction fee packages for sprinklered buildings are also generally structured on the assumption that there will be less fire flow impact and less fire department operations impact so fees for those services are tempered. Remember that this state is extremely proactive regarding fire sprinklers – we have a nearly 100% sprinklered new construction environment including all dwelling units. No city – especially in the Bay Area – is going to allow an impediment to retrofitting a building to hold up, or more accurately afford a building owner leverage to argue hardship in undertaking a sprinkler retrofit, especially if it’s voluntary. In this case, had the new use been permitted the sprinklers would have been mandated by code but I’m pretty sure that the fire service connection would have been facilitated by City of Oakland with little drama. Looking back at the 2007 Sofa Super Store fire in Charleston, SC we would find that exact scenario however: my recollection is that the owner claimed hardship in the face of a proposed $100,000 (or something like that) capacity and connection fee for the fire service that would have been required to serve sprinklers in that building. Steve From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John Paulsen Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2016 11:21 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Ghostship Fire In my humble opinion, Steve is absolutely, positively, 100% right on this. There are too many documented cases where sprinkler activation inhibited the development of, or controlled an emerging fire. Where the flow switch gave timely warning for occupants to evacuate and called fire responders. Unfortunately, the fire codes are built on past tragedies and as long as we fail to learn from history, people will continue to loose life and property to fire. The REAL tragedy here is that IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED! This chain of events could have been broken in so many places! The owner of this building will pay a heavy price for his reckless roll of the dice. I would like to know one thing though from forum members in California; does Oakland have the same policy in place in which the local water purveyor charges a large fee to make a water tap for fire protection service? A 6” fire only tap here in Columbus will run you around $30K (which is actually a decrease over past rates) before the first piece of pipe is laid. It represents a very serious impediment to retrofitting sprinklers in older structures. I am NOT making excuse for this owner, I am trying to identify systemic impediments to providing active fire protection systems to the segments of our country that need it the most. Every time I hear a news story where a child (or children) has died in a house fire, it angers me because I know it was completely preventable! I have attended meetings with the residential developers that oppose sprinklers. I’ve heard their arguments, all of which come back to $’s. I live in the only sprinkler protected house in my suburb and that took major arm twisting of the builder and he didn’t pay a dime for the install! We have a cost effective prevention solution. When will we learn America…?! John Paulsen Crown Fire System Design Grove City, OH From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2016 1:45 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Ghostship Fire I’d like to open a separate thread on this topic and address a comment made yesterday that, “… sprinklers alone might not have saved but a few more lives – but they would have saved more property and probably prevented the roof collapse.” I fundamentally disagree with that statement but also want to emphasize that the failures here were of process and gross negligence by the building owner. In summary, a commercial building was illegally converted from commercial/industrial/storage to a live/work occupancy. To date, no exact timeline has been proffered for when the first artists-in-residence moved in, but there are anecdotal reports of parties occurring at this property at 18 months ago. There were complaints filed against the property in 2014 for blight and accumulated debris, so the live/work use is likely more than two years old. The last permitted use was as a warehouse and the owner allegedly made statements of intent to turn it into a recycling center. As recently as 11/14/16 an inspector was at the property in response to a complaint but city officials say he couldn’t access the building. There is an open investigation pursuant to that attempt to inspect. The building as stuffed full of combustible furnishings but if you look at the photos that are circulating on line, it’s mostly wood and textiles and things that would normally be found in a residence or an artist’s studio. Such items are highly combustible but burn at low temperatures and would be classified as Class I or Class II commodities – not profoundly hazardous. Photos of the interiors and debris pile show lots of clutter, but not concentrated amounts of flammable/combustible liquids. So, for a live/work loft environment, the place may not have been overloaded and the photos I’ve seen remind me of many of the antiques barns and malls I’ve visited. To say that sprinklers would or might not have saved more than a few lives is misleading and leaves the conversation open to haters and opponents of residential sprinkler requirements. Standard spray sprinklers would almost certainly have controlled, suppressed, even extinguished a fire with this type of fire load, had they been installed. The issues of adequate egress and structural integrity of the mezzanine would be moot, because had the building been permitted and legally re-classified, then such conditions would not have been present and sprinklers would have been. But it’s not just that the artist colony wasn’t permitted or sprinklered; even if that had been done, they were still having illegal A-occupancy events. As it stands, the owner of the building and the promoter/manager of the Ghostship community are toast. 36 counts of negligent homicide are a good place to start. Code violations, endangerment, fraud … I’m sure a creative DA can stack charges against them worth 2 or 3 life sentences. And the civil litigation will be breathtaking; their personal and professional wealth will be wiped out and their insurance companies taxed to the limits of coverage and likely beyond. The building and fire officials will be grilled as to why these conditions were still in place after multiple complaints. When – if ever – were inspections done at or inside the property? What did they know and when did they know it? Politicians and community leaders will express outrage and, as with the Station Nightclub fire, there will be a push to tighten enforcement and get sprinklers into buildings where change of use and occupancy are planned or have been undertaken, with and without permits. This is also a good time to encourage members of our communities to be vigilant, in the same way our government has asked us to be wary of potentially unhinged people: If you see something, say something. Tell your kids, if you go into a building and it looks unsafe, turn your asses around and get out. My kids and employees have all heard that speech several times now. But to be clear: FIRE SPRINKLERS WOULD HAVE STOPPED THAT FIRE BEFORE IT SPREAD FROM ITS POINT OF ORIGIN. Standing down from my soapbox, Steve L.
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
