Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 1
Benefits of Additional Retroactive Fire Sprinkler Installation Requirements within the City of
Fresno
Justin H. Beal, MPA, FM
City of Fresno Fire Department, Fresno, California
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 2
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.
Signed: ______
Justin H. Beal Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 3
Abstract
The City of Fresno’s long history of unwanted fires has led to multiple approaches to deal with
fire’s wide reaching impact. Policies to deal with the unwanted fire problem have, at various
times, pitted competing interests against one another. Regulatory policy has vacillated in
response to a number of factors. Issues including: City agency response to large scale incidents,
water availability, wastewater treatment, air pollution, and demography should be included in any
regulatory discussion going forward. In the 1960’s, the City recognized the need for fire
sprinklers in many existing buildings, requiring fire sprinkler retrofits in buildings considered to be “dangerous”. The City’s fire code ordinance was amended to include a lower prescriptive installation threshold for fire sprinklers in new buildings, however, the problem remained that comprehensive retroactive fire sprinkler installations in existing buildings were not included. The purpose of this research is to ascertain the potential benefits of adopting additional retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements within the City of Fresno. Action research was used to address the following research questions: what are the operational response benefits of additional retroactive fire sprinkler installations; what criteria should be used to determine retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements; what influence will additional retroactive fire sprinkler installations have on sustainable building practices; what are the economic benefits of retroactive fire sprinkler installations? The procedures used to carry out this research included a literature review, a feedback instrument completed by subject matter experts and follow up interviews with the experts. The results demonstrated numerous benefits to adopting new, retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements. These benefits were used as the underpinning for the
completion of a memorandum to the City of Fresno Fire Chief recommending inclusion of
additional retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements for the City of Fresno. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 4
Table of Contents
Certification Statement ...... 2
Abstract ...... 3
Table of Contents ...... 4
Introduction ...... 5
Background and Significance ...... 7
Literature Review...... 10
Procedures ...... 17
Results ...... 23
Discussion ...... 27
Recommendations ...... 35
References ...... 37
Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Form Jessica Power 43
Appendix B: Interview Form Tom Welch 44
Appendix C: Interview Form Shandy Padgett 45
Appendix D: Interview Form Andy Woody 46
Appendix E: Fire Chief Memorandum RE: Adoption 47
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 5
Benefits of Additional Retroactive Fire Sprinkler Installation Requirements within the
City of Fresno
The City of Fresno has, for many years, had more restrictive local requirements for the installation of fire sprinklers for newly constructed buildings. In most cases these installations have been prescribed by building square footage which was significantly lower than the prescribed minimums found within the State of California adopted Building and Fire codes.
In the past, the City’s municipal code has also required retroactive installation of fire sprinklers in buildings that were considered “dangerous”. According to Borgardt (n.d.), during the 1960’s the City of Fresno’s “Dangerous Building Regulations” were being developed, and these regulations were adopted by the City in October of 1961. Unfortunately, Borgardt (n.d.), does not provide a definition of a “dangerous” building within his paper for proper context.
Randall (1974), however notes that the City’s Dangerous Building Ordinance was a retroactive piece of legislation that required building owners to bring their buildings up to a minimum level of safety. This minimum level of safety was more than what currently existed in the building, but was a lower level than that required for new building construction. The retroactive installation of automatic fire sprinklers was accepted in lieu of more costly forms of construction in certain cases, and he provides an appendix noting the permitted substitutions.
Changes of use or occupancy, where the new use was considered to be more hazardous than the previous use, have also required the retroactive installation of fire sprinklers (Municode,
2015). In assembly occupancies, current and proposed occupant loads were factored into the retroactive fire sprinkler requirements (Municode, 2015). Building additions in certain cases, have also retroactively required the installation of fire sprinklers, though the use of the prescriptive square footage threshold and percentage of building added is also factored into this Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 6
equation (Municode, 2015). Certain fire damage repairs have also retroactively required the
installation of fire sprinklers (Municode, 2015).
Each of the circumstances requiring retroactive sprinkler installation noted above have
evolved over time, increasing the number of retroactive fire sprinkler installations. As of today
though, we do not know by what number. There also does not appear to be a comprehensive, data
driven approach to how the requirements for retroactive installations were determined, and how
the requirements should be expanded or reduced based upon current conditions. Impact
measurements for retroactive fire sprinkler installations, for instance: how have the additional
requirements for system installation impacted the ability of the fire department to respond to calls
for service, do not appear to be known. Randall (1974), does allude to a positive impact, noting
that in 1966 a downtown fire station was able to be relocated to a different area experiencing
growth. According to Randall (1974), this saved the City $1.8m dollars, though he does not
provide his methodology for making this determination.
The problem is the City of Fresno has not adopted an updated, comprehensive set of
additional, retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements based upon the department’s current
capabilities and limitations. The purpose of this applied research project is to identify the benefits
of adopting additional, retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements within the City of
Fresno. As a result of the research findings, adopting additional, retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements within the City of Fresno’s adoptive fire code ordinance appears to be warranted.
To establish a strong premise for the future adoption of additional, retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements within the City of Fresno’s fire code ordinance, the action research method was employed. The research provides answers to the following research Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 7
questions: what are the operational response benefits of additional retroactive fire sprinkler
installations; what criteria should be used to determine retroactive fire sprinkler installation
requirements; what influence will additional retroactive fire sprinkler installations have on
sustainable building practices; what are the economic benefits of retroactive fire sprinkler
installations?
Background and Significance
The City of Fresno can generally be described as being located in the midpoint of the state of California. The region is generally known as the San Joaquin Valley, which is one of the most productive agricultural regions in the world. The City of Fresno is also the county seat for the
County of Fresno, and according to the United States Census Bureau (2016), has a population estimate of 515,986 and in 2010 (the last year data is available from the census), a land area of
111.96 square miles. The City of Fresno has had a significant amount of past history with unwanted fires. In fact, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) first took notice of
Fresno’s problem with unwanted fires in 1925. According to NFPA (1925), Fresno’s unwanted fire problem was attributed to unstable land values because the City had grown so rapidly. NFPA
(1925) also noted that when a City grows as quickly as Fresno had, building construction tended to be feeble, and the public tended to be occupied with other issues. Housekeeping to prevent unwanted fire was also not a priority.
The City of Fresno’s Fire Department was founded in 1877 (City of Fresno, n.d.). As one can imagine, a City as old as Fresno has gone through a number of changes within the fire department during that time, and at different times, has attempted to use different methods to control unwanted fires. As with many fire departments, the City of Fresno’s concentration on fire control and extinguishment has waned over the years. In fact, in 2015 the City’s emergency Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 8
medical service (EMS) calls (including arrivals and downgrades) were responsible for 71% of the
fire department’s calls for service (City of Fresno, 2016). In totality, the fire department is
actually dealing with non-fire related calls for service 85% of the time, and of the 15% of calls
that are fire related, more than half of that is for calls coded as false alarms, while the remaining
7% are coded as fires (City of Fresno, 2016). The City of Fresno Fire Department has become,
like many other fire departments, an EMS/Planning and Development service delivery agency
that puts out fires as an adjunct.
Currently, the change in call for service composition has had little effect on service
delivery. In a general sense, the City’s method of fire department organization, as well as the
requirements for retroactive sprinklering of existing buildings has remained relatively unchanged
for a significant period of time. There have been a number of changes in code related
requirements for sprinklering buildings, but most have been related to the initial construction of a
building, rather than improvements to existing buildings. Changes however, have been occurring
all around us.
One often talked about, though little researched impact on fire service delivery has to do
with the City’s future demography. Unfortunately, the United States Census Bureau’s figures do
not match up precisely for what is commonly referred to as the “Baby Boomer Generation”, but
according to Colby and Ortman (2014), the “Baby Boomer” cohort began turning 65 years of age
in 2011. According to the United States Census Bureau (2010), the City of Fresno had a Baby
Boomer “Plus” (“Plus” includes everyone above 65 years of age) population cohort that was 9% of the City’s population, or 43,399 residents. By 2014, this same cohort was estimated to be 9.6% of the City’s total population, or 48,764 residents. As time progresses, this cohort will continue to grow, and as noted by Scommegna (2013), the Baby Boomer cohort has fewer risk factors than Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 9
previous generations, but is more likely to have a late in life disability. These impacts are
particularly important when viewed in light of the substantial fire department provided EMS
service delivery, relative to service delivery in the form of fire control and extinguishment.
As the City moves forward, many issues will be faced, including providing some level of fire control and extinguishment service, while also responding to what are likely to be even higher levels of EMS calls for service. This is especially true as a large cohort of the City’s residents continue to age. One way to respond to this change in service delivery may be to incorporate additional retroactive fire sprinkler requirements for existing buildings as buildings are improved.
By having a higher number of fire sprinklered buildings, resources normally expended for fire control and extinguishment may be reduced, freeing resources to respond to a higher number of
EMS calls.
Future adoption of additional, retroactive fire sprinkler requirements may also help reduce budgetary impact of the fire department, as there may be fewer fire stations, apparatus and personnel needed, while continuing to provide an acceptable level of fire suppression and control capability. The fire department’s staffing model may also be updated providing additional efficiency gains, or better service as a result. Capacity to respond to multiple events or a higher number of calls may be increased, since fewer staff may be needed to respond to any single event, thus increasing availability of staff.
In the National Fire Academy Course – Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in
Emergency Management, understanding a community’s vulnerabilities is discussed in Unit 2,
Community Hazards Emergency Response – Capability Assurance Process (CHER-CAP), as it relates to understanding a fire department’s mobilization capacity in an emergency. Agencies engaged in the CHER-CAP should explore areas where there may be an opportunity to improve Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 10
response and preparedness efforts (United States Fire Administration, 2016). Unit 2 also
discusses vulnerability assessments and potential impacts. These impacts encompass a building’s
vulnerability factors. (United States Fire Administration, 2016). This applied research project
will provide pertinent data for the public policy conversation regarding the merits of additional
retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements for existing buildings located within the City of
Fresno and how preparedness, response and community vulnerability may be affected.
This applied research project also addresses the United States Fire Administration (USFA) goals of reduc[ing] fire and life safety risk through preparedness, prevention and mitigation, promoting response, local planning and preparedness for all hazards and enhancing the fire and emergency services capability for response to and recovery from all hazards. (United States Fire
Administration, 2014).
Literature Review
An expansive review of up to date literary materials was initiated to provide a précis of the
data available regarding the adoption of retroactive fire sprinkler ordinances, the potential benefits to stakeholders, political concerns, regulatory challenges, etc. Historical material was also included in the literature review where it was determined to be germane to the issues at hand.
According to Stupka (2004), a thought to consider when contemplating adoption of a more restrictive fire sprinkler installation threshold including retroactivity, is the current capability and resources of the agency. Stupka (2004), determined the fire sprinkler installation threshold based upon the size of a building that his department was thought to be able to extinguish. This approach is similar to the City of Fresno’s historical extinguishment calculation which has been used since the 1960’s to justify a lower than model code fire sprinkler installation threshold in newly constructed buildings (Borgardt, n.d.). Stupka (2004), noted that when considering Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 11 retroactivity, the use of a prescriptive code (i.e. NFPA 101) to evaluate deficiencies in a given structure on a case by case basis was appropriate. Stupka (2004), also mentioned that one of the respondents in his survey about adopting additional fire sprinkler requirements rhetorically asked why his [Stupka’s] tiny community required more fire protection than the rest of the state? The idea being that additional sprinkler requirements was considered to be “more” fire protection.
The respondent followed up with the supposition that by answering his rhetorical question he would then answer Stupka’s survey.
The respondent to Stupka (2004) may have had nefarious intentions (the respondent copied the mayor and planning director with his rhetorical question to Stupka), but the point is not lost. Perhaps the question was one that should have been addressed when formulating the survey?
Additionally, it is a valid question (why does this community require what is considered by many people “more” fire protection in the form of additional fire sprinkler installations) when considering the criteria for retroactive requirements. As a larger agency, the City of Fresno Fire
Department is routinely asked by laypeople why we have such a restrictive fire sprinkler threshold for new construction; aren’t we able to handle fire control without fire sprinklers? This seems to be a public education or public relations issue as most laypeople (including many policymakers) don’t appear to fully understand response capability. The agency must be able to respond; is the protection proved more, less, equivalent to something or somewhere else and why.
According to Socha (2008), when fire sprinkler installations are optional to install, the
installation decision will always be one of economics. This provides a valuable contextual reference, in that the cost of the installation must somehow be accounted for either in a direct or indirect way. For example, the retroactive installation of a fire sprinkler system in an existing building can be viewed as an asset to the building (and thus building owner) by improving its Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 12
desirability, enhancing its market value and increasing the range of permissible uses. This is in
stark contrast to the public good that is the modern fire service.
According to Weimer and Vining (2011), a public good is a good that is provided that may be either non-rivalrous when consumed by more than one person, (for instance the ability for the fire department to provide fire suppression service for multiple consumers at the same time – no rivalry exists), or non-excludable (i.e. no single person can exercise control over the good) or the good may be both non-rivalrous and non-excludable (i.e. the fire department). Weimer and
Vining (2011), also note that a public good usually has a third characteristic known as congestion or crowding. Generally, congestion means that when there is a high demand for a good or service, for instance a response to a call by a fire department, the consumption of the service by one consumer begins to affect the consumption (i.e. the availability of the fire department to respond to another call for service by a different consumer) of the service by other consumers (Weimer and Vining, 2011). In general terms, a public good (or service) described in this way also tends to be a non-competitive good (or service), as there is no private enterprise which provides the good or service.
Socha (2008) also noted the substantial differences in required water supply demand, pressure, etc. when comparing fire sprinklers to manual firefighting activities. He continued, contrasting the overall amount damage caused by a fire sprinkler operating to that of the manual firefighting process, noting that there would be more damage to a person’s possessions because of the length of time before fire control was established, and the amount of water applied during manual firefighting operations (Socha, 2008). This dismisses the issue at hand though; damage, whether caused by fire or water, was occurring, and there is a substantial difference in repair costs between buildings damaged by water versus those damaged by smoke and fire. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 13
Cowan (2010), notes that during a fire, buildings that were constructed under previous
building and fire codes are generally more dangerous than buildings built under current codes to both occupants as well as firefighters, as previous codes were less concerned with safety. Cowan
(2010), continued that construction requirements (including current automatic fire sprinkler requirements) that are imposed upon newly constructed buildings are also a necessity for existing buildings. Cowan (2010), also noted that in some communities, fire departments with low level staffing, or combination departments with both paid and volunteer staff can benefit from fire sprinkler installations, as the amount of necessary fire control operations, salvage and overhaul and other activities are substantially reduced. Cowan (2010), also conducted interviews of various stakeholders who provided insight to potential issues regarding retrofit fire sprinkler requirements. These issues included: the lack of various forms of financial incentives to improve existing buildings with fire sprinklers, the use of unionized labor (as related to installation costs), lack of education by the fire department as to the potential benefits of fire sprinkler installations over time, political issues regarding when fire sprinklers were required (i.e. as a condition of a significant improvement or change in use of the building), businesses that may choose to locate elsewhere as a result of a retroactive fire sprinkler requirement, discovery of other substandard construction conditions requiring remediation (Cowan, 2010).
The National Fire Sprinkler Association (2006), identifies several different pieces of criteria that could be used to require retroactive installation of fire sprinklers in existing buildings.
These criteria may include a building’s type of construction, height (totaled in both number of stories and in actual feet), occupancy or use group, total number of occupants, and needed fire flow (National Fire Sprinkler Association, 2006). Additionally, the National Fire Sprinkler Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 14
Association (2006), notes that a demographic model may need to be developed demonstrating the
impacted area if done by geography.
Another set of guidelines which include criteria used to evaluate retroactive building
requirements (or prescriptive building standards in California parlance) can be found in the 2013
California Existing Building Code. The 2013 California Existing Building Code applies only to seismic requirements, and scopes it’s retroactivity for unreinforced masonry in relation to seismic
upgrades in two ways, first generally, then based upon a facility type (California Building
Standards Commission, 2013). In the general section, seismic safety requirements are applied to
any existing building, of any occupancy type and type of construction, of any height or number of
stories, and of any occupant load, though the building must have at least one bearing wall constructed of unreinforced masonry (California Building Standards Commission, 2013). This is a very wide application, but is then narrowed to a single building element. In the second way, the code requires a different level of improvement to existing buildings that are essential or hazardous facilities, which widens the retroactive application because of either risk or hazard (California
Building Standards Commission, 2013).
A substantially different set of criteria for applying retroactive provisions in an existing building can be found in the 2012 International Existing Building Code. This code has many differing application formulas, depending on a variety of factors. For instance, it begins by scoping the requirements based upon whether a building has been previously occupied or not
(International Code Council, 2011). From there, the code prescribes compliance methods with its various provisions, further subdividing the applicability based upon whether the provision is triggered by addition, alteration, repair, change of occupancy, or moved structures (International Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 15
Code Council, 2011). In some cases, it further splits the applicability based upon levels of alteration (International Code Council, 2011).
Though it was noted in a completely different context, Fink (1991) noted that his jurisdiction used a required fire flow methodology for requiring fire sprinklers (i.e. 2000 gallons per minute – gpm) in buildings. It is conceivable that a survey of existing buildings could be conducted, and retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements applied using similar criteria, especially in fire flow deficient areas.
According to Booth, Hammond, Lamond, and Proverbs (2012), sustainable construction must be balanced between three competing concerns including: social-cultural, environmental, and economic. Booth et. al. (2012), continued that the current processes used for building construction may have contributed to climate change and also note that the current rate of consumption of raw materials for building construction cannot be sustained. Sustainable building practices are going to be the way of the future (Booth et. al., 2012).
Ayaz and Yang (2009), note that based upon the likely regulatory regimes (like the institution of cap and trade), a building’s sustainability may include a calculation of whole building life carbon emissions. This is particularly important because of the difference between operational carbon emissions versus embodied carbon emissions (Ayaz and Yang, 2009). In some cases it may be more advantageous to refurbish an existing building than construct a new one, especially in light of a zero emissions targets (Ayaz and Yang, 2009).
The United States Department of Energy (2012), notes that embodied energy for building components consists of all of the energy consumed for the entire life of a component. This includes the energy consumed to manufacture, transport and later dispose of the component
(United States Department of Energy, 2012). There is a significant difference between the Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 16
embodied carbon of a component and the embodied energy of the same component. In either
case, refurbishment of an existing building and its components, which includes the installation of fire sprinklers, can extend the useful life of a building, thereby reducing the building’s
environmental impact over its operational lifetime. Each of these factors; building life cycle,
embodied carbon and embodied energy affect a building’s sustainability.
Fleming (2012), noted that within the “Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design”
(LEED) rating system, fire sprinklers are generally not considered, as fire sprinkler systems do
not meet LEED criteria.
The often thought of, traditional economic benefits of fire sprinkler installations have
been noted by several sources. For instance, National Fire Protection Association/Fire Sprinkler
Initiative.org, notes that there are several building construction substitutions that can be made
when fire sprinklers are installed in a dwellings, including street requirements, fire hydrant
spacing, angles of grade and building location on a lot, etc. (National Fire Protection
Association/Fire Sprinkler Initiative.org, 2016).
Instead of discussing those types of economic benefits, I wanted to explore more abstract
or esoteric benefits which might be extrapolated to retroactive sprinkler installations. For
instance, Moore (1993), notes that fire sprinkler installation may reduce water distribution system
costs in certain cases, such as when the demand for water for domestic purposes is higher than the
potential fire flow required for manual firefighting.
Fink (1991), noted that there was an impact of fire sprinklers on fire department growth.
Fink used the example of a jurisdiction being unable to reduce the amount of fire department
resources in an existing portion of a jurisdiction, where that portion of the jurisdiction had only a
small number of fire sprinklered buildings, without some sort of retroactive installation Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 17 requirement. Fink (1991), also noted that there would be less demand on a fire department when a building was sprinklered, because buildings that were not sprinklered were likely to be a complete loss from an unwanted fire, regardless of the capabilities of the fire department.
Once the literature review had been completed and the findings contemplated, a number of important observations came to light when considering any adoption of a retroactive fire sprinkler ordinance. Some of the most important observations include understanding the intent of the ordinance itself; what is an organization and municipality trying to accomplish? Being prepared to explain the intent of the ordinance and how its adoption can help both the business owners and the organization in terms of safety and cost. Being able to point out the environmental benefits, which every person in a community may enjoy, and how an organization may be able to respond differently when a sprinkler system is installed. This review helped to develop an understanding of the range of issues that the City may be faced with should it adopt additional retroactive fire sprinklers requirements within its Fire code ordinance.
Procedures
The procedures used to for this applied research paper began with a situational analysis.
This was used to determine what, if any, issues may influence my ability to complete research on this particular topic. Issues that were considered included a lack of information available on retroactive code requirements of any kind, difficulty in comparing disparate retroactive requirements (for instance the difference between retroactive fire sprinkler requirements and seismic stability requirements), etc.
A broad literature review was then undertaken, with special consideration given to the items identified during the situational analysis. The literature review began by searching the
United States Fire Administration – Learning Resource Center Library Search Engine, with Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 18
suitable keywords. These keywords included each of the following words and phrases: “existing
structure”, “retrofit”, and “preexisting”, along with several more. The United States Fire
Administration – Learning Resource Center was contacted and a series of interlibrary loans for materials were requested via the Fresno County Main Library. The requests included a number of pieces of material that could be found only in the United States Fire Administration – Learning
Resource Center archives. These requests amounted to more than 60 individual items.
The City of Fresno Fire Department’s Headquarters Library was perused for applicable materials, and the Fresno Fire Department’s Automated Report Generator widget was accessed.
Multiple websites were accessed including the United States Fire Administration site, the National
Fire Sprinkler Association, etc. and other internet based keyword searches were performed using the Google, Inc. search engine to obtain results.
A number of the websites that were accessed contributed research materials that were later included within this applied research project.
The action research methodology was employed to study the four research questions posed. Currently, the Fresno Fire Department records management system lacks the ability to determine how many sprinkler systems have been required to be added based upon current or past retroactive sprinkler requirements. Because this data is not readily available, it is not currently possible to determine what effects that previous retroactive fire sprinkler installations have had as related to the research questions posed.
Having been in the fire service for a number of years, I have many contacts that are subject matter experts in the disciplines of fire prevention, building standards administration and code adoption, as well as public agency policy. Each of the subject matter experts that were
contacted for this applied research project are previously known to me, with two of them having Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 19
provided valuable input on two previous applied research projects I completed; for the R123
Executive Development and R274 Executive Analysis of Community Risk Reduction courses respectively. Each of the experts are also currently enrolled in the National Fire Academy’s -
Executive Fire Officer Program, though I have attended an Executive Fire Officer course with only one of them.
The experts were provided the series of research questions, which were asked in questionnaire format. Three of the experts are assigned to the fire prevention bureaus within their particular departments, and all of them have well over a decade of fire service experience. One of the experts is the fire chief of the department. Because retroactivity of prescriptive building standards is wildly diverse, and methods of application and requirements can vary widely, the research questions asked were similar to the ones for this applied research project. Responses were intended to elicit more general opinions to each of the questions, and then synthesized to obtain a complete picture.
Each of the subject matter experts were contacted through public email first and later emailed the questionnaire. The experts were asked to review the questions and provide written responses to each one. Once a questionnaire was returned, I made an appointment with the applicable experts for a follow up interview to be completed via phone. Each written response was then gone over in depth with the expert to obtain contextual and background information to understand the response more completely.
The four experts selected for this project included Tom Welch, Fire Chief of the Mill
Valley (CA) Fire Department, Andy Woody, Training Chief for the Searcy (AR) Fire Department;
Shandy Padgett, Fire Marshal for the Morrisville (NC) Fire/Rescue Department, and Jessica
Power, Fire Marshal for the Tiburon (CA) Fire Protection District. During contact with the Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 20 experts, they provided me with profile materials that established their educational achievement, practical knowledge, formal training and fire service experience. In one case, the materials provided were nearly identical to previously provided information. This previous material had been referenced in my previous applied research projects, in both 2014 and 2015 (Beal, 2014 &
2015).
The interview questions that were posed to the experts were formulated in such a way as to gauge the expert’s opinions on retroactive fire sprinklers, and explore other thoughts or ideas that the experts believed to be relevant to the subject. The interview questions and written responses are provided in Appendices A through D. During the interview process, questions I asked also sought out additional anecdotal or other evidence about the topic of retroactive fire sprinkler requirements.
Jessica Power was interviewed on February 8, 2016. Power is currently the Fire Marshal for the Tiburon Fire Protection District in Tiburon, CA, where she directs the department’s fire prevention program. Her duties include review of construction documents, as well as field inspections. Power also completes fire code enforcement, fire investigation, and public education duties and acts as the department’s public information officer. Power has 14 years of total fire service experience which includes both operations and fire prevention experience. Power received a Bachelor’s of Science degree from California State University, Chico, and has completed and received a Leadership Program Certificate from Dominican (CA) University.
Power has received the following certifications from the California Office of the State Fire
Marshal: Firefighter I, Firefighter II, Public Education Officer, Fire Prevention Officer, Fire
Protection Specialist, Plans Examiner, Fire Investigator I and Fire Officer. Power has also completed numerous training classes from several organizations including the National Fire Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 21
Protection Association, International Code Council and National Fire Academy (Beal 2014 &
2015). Power is also a currently accepted National Fire Academy – Executive Fire Officer
Program participant.
Shandy Padgett was interviewed on February 24, 2016. Padgett has been in the field of fire prevention since her beginning in the fire service, currently holding the position of Fire
Marshal for the Morrisville, N.C. Fire/Rescue Department. Padgett possesses a Bachelor of Arts
degree in Psychology, and a Master of Science degree in Emergency Services Management.
Padgett has also attained a number of certifications, including but not limited to: Level III Fire
Inspector and Level III Fire & Life Safety Educator with the State of North Carolina. She also
holds the International Code Council certifications of Fire Plans Examiner and Level I and II Fire
Inspector. Padgett is an instructor for the North Carolina Fire Inspector Standard certification
courses and is actively involved in her local community and participates in variety of service
groups, which include: Safe Kids of Wake County and the Wake County Firefighters Burned
Children’s Fund. She also serves as the chairperson for the Greater Wake Fire Code Officials
organization, and serves on the Board of Directors for the North Carolina State Fire Marshal’s
Association. Padgett is also a currently accepted National Fire Academy - Executive Fire Officer
Program participant.
Tom Welch was interviewed on February 24, 2016. Welch has 22 years of public safety
experience, the last 15 of which have been with the Mill Valley Fire Department. Welch has
served in various capacities, including: Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal, Fire Captain,
Engineer/Paramedic, and Fire Chief. Welch is also an active participant on many specialty teams
and committees throughout Marin County, CA. These specialty teams include the Marin County
Urban Search and Rescue Team where he has served for 12 years as the Medical Manager. Welch Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 22
is currently also involved as a Plans Section Chief with the North Bay Incident Management
Team. Welch is also an active member of the Marin County Fire Prevention Officers Association
serving as the Secretary since 2013 and is the current secretary of the Marin County Fire Chiefs
Association. Welch holds a Master’s Degree in Fire Service Administration, as well as the
California State Chief Officer Certification. Welch is also a current student of the National Fire
Academy - Executive Fire Officer Program.
Andy Woody was interviewed on April 5, 2016. Woody is a 22 year fire service veteran
and is currently the Training Chief for the Searcy, Arkansas Fire Department. Woody holds a
significant number of fire service certifications which include: Fire Service Instructor III and Fire
Officer II. Woody is also involved with the Safety, Health, and Survival Section of the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) and is credentialed by the Center for Public
Safety Excellence (CPSE) as a Chief Fire Officer (CFO) and Chief Training Officer (CTO).
Woody holds an Associate’s Degree in Fire Science, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Business
Management. Woody is also a current National Fire Academy – Executive Fire Officer participant.
Limitations in this study were numerous. First among them were the various experts’ divergent experience in application of retroactive fire sprinkler requirements, though in at least two communities, retroactive fire sprinkler installations were somewhat common. The sizes of communities served by the experts was also substantially different and each expert had a significant amount of difficulty in dissociating real world political or other constraints when considering the research question related to retroactive installation criteria. Finally, there is a dearth of research material which is specifically applicable to retroactive fire sprinkler installations in general, including number, location, rationale, etc. for their installation. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 23
Results
The information located during the literature review along with the opinions articulated by
the experts was scrutinized. In a general sense, the experts delivered responses which were
congruent with each other, however there were some specific deviations. Each of the interview
questions that was posed to the experts was similar to the research project questions to ensure that
the data was as closely aligned as possible, and the responses were applicable and contextualized
properly. Once the interviews had been completed, the expert’s responses were then compared
with one another, along with the data that had been obtained from the literature review.
With regards to the operational response benefits generated by retroactive fire sprinkler
installation, every expert provided similar information on the elementary benefits of this type of
requirement, which included a higher level of safety for building occupants (Power, personal
communication, February 8, 2016), (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016),
(Padgett, personal communication, February 24, 2016), (Woody, personal communication, April
5, 2016). However, Welch and Power both specifically mentioned positive operational
deployment changes that could be realized (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016),
(Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Welch noted that at some point, for instance when 50% of a community is fire sprinklered, a change in deployment would have to be considered (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Power noted that longer term positive effects could be a change in station location, a change in the operational mix (i.e. size and type of apparatus in a department fleet), etc. (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016).
Power also felt that a department could change its role in the community, for instance concentrating on a different type of service, like emergency medical assistance (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016). I found it interesting that Power and Welch provided these Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 24 types of responses, as both serve communities that have prescriptive new construction fire sprinkler ordinances that are more restrictive than adopted model code, and both communities also have retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements based upon other triggering events
(i.e. building additions or remodels, etc.). This was in contrast to Padgett and Woody. Padgett noted that another benefit would be the likelihood that operational personnel would attempt to save the structure, versus taking a defensive posture and concentrating on adjacent structure protection when fire sprinklers were installed (Padgett, personal communication, February 24,
2016).
Generally, when discussing what criteria they believed should be used to determine retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements, the experts each demonstrated a marked inability to use their imagination, instead focusing their thoughts on the constraints each one would inherently be faced with when developing the criteria in a “real world” sense. Power noted that in her community, a 50% threshold for residential remodels or additions seemed to be adequate, though she mentioned that it may be due for modification (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016). Welch felt that some sort of all-encompassing retroactive installation requirement would burdensome in many cases, however he did believe that some sort of percentage threshold for building additions or remodels could be used as a baseline determining factor for installation (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Padgett thought it would be appropriate to evaluate each project on a case by case basis to determine the criteria, as this would lower the financial impact on the project (Padgett, personal communication,
February 24, 2016). Padgett also felt as though a wide-ranging retroactive installation requirement could be an overreach, opining that whatever the criteria, it should be used to solve some sort of fire problem rather than addressing a non-existent concern (Padgett, personal Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 25
communication, February 24, 2016). Padgett also noted that the criteria should be evaluated from
both the perspective of the service providing agency and the owner; is it more cost effective to the
agency to service an unsprinklered building with existing resources compared to requiring the
installation of a sprinkler system, based upon expected outcome (Padgett, personal
communication, February 24, 2016). Woody felt that under certain remodeling or changes of
occupancy, retroactive fire sprinklers should be installed (Woody, personal communication, April
5, 2016). One of the most interesting points Woody made about this subject was regarding model
or adopted code advancement (i.e. when a new model or adopted code began to require fire
sprinklers as a condition to construct a certain type of building or a certain size of building, then
existing buildings of the same type, occupancy, size, etc. should then be required to upgrade an
existing building, with a prescriptive deadline for compliance) (Woody, personal communication,
April 5, 2016).
When the question of building sustainability was discussed, there was a wide variance in
the level of concern the experts expressed, related to retroactive fire sprinkler installation. Welch
thought that this would be a positive when considered against California’s historic drought
(Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Power felt that in her community, this was
not a significant issue, as because of the relative wealth of the area residents, most would rather a
building be demolished and rebuilt rather than renovated and upgraded (Power, personal
communication, February 8, 2016). Power also noted that most of the residents in her jurisdiction
placed less of an emphasis on buildings of cultural or historical significance and would prefer the
buildings be removed and replaced (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016). Another issue common in Power’s jurisdiction included the use of exotic materials versus traditional building elements, and these exotic materials may run between the extremes of having almost no Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 26 environmental value, to being hugely important to a building’s sustainability (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016). Padgett noted that she had had very little exposure to building sustainability issues, and the research question inspired her to complete some research on emerging issues related to the issue (Padgett, personal communication, February 24, 2016).
Padgett stated that she felt as though sustainable buildings may be more likely to need retroactive fire sprinklers because of an increased likelihood of backdraft, etc. (Padgett, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Woody noted that there may be a perception that
“sustainability” initiatives that would require retroactive fire sprinkler installations may be met with resistance because one cause (building sustainability) and another cause (fire safety) may end up competing with one another (Woody, personal communication, April 5, 2016).
Some of the experts had common responses to the question relating to economic benefits of retroactive fire sprinkler installations. Both Power and Welch noted that there would likely be long term insurance savings to building owners related to sprinkler installation (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016), (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Power and Welch also both noted the potential savings to fire departments, as there could be deployment changes based on the number of fire sprinklered buildings (Power, personal communication,
February 8, 2016), (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Padgett focused more on the potential for negative economic outcomes, in that businesses may be forced to close because of a lack of affordability, and thought that completing additional studies on imposed costs versus benefits should be evaluated by each community considering retroactive fire sprinkler installation legislation (Padgett, personal communication, February 24, 2016). Woody noted that a major positive economic impact could be realized by retroactive fire sprinkler installation, comparing it to mandatory motorcycle helmet legislation. Woody stated that in a situation where Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 27
a fire event occurred and someone was injured, that there would be a huge economic burden on
both the general population and specific groups, noting that there were long term costs for caring
for the injured especially if the injury was particularly grievous in nature. Woody added that this
was true whether the injured person was a civilian or firefighter, and that these costs should be
considered when contemplating the economic benefits of retroactive fire sprinkler installations
(Woody, personal communication, April 5, 2016).
The data from the written responses and the interviews of the experts, along with that from
the literature review was collated and scrutinized. This data analysis was then used as the
baseline for proposing new, additional retroactive fire sprinkler installation requirements within
the 2016 City of Fresno adopted Fire code. Appendix E consists of a memorandum to the Fire
Chief which includes the proposed adoptive text for inclusion into the Fresno Municipal Code.
Discussion
The research documented in this applied research project indicates that there are a significant number of issues that must be addressed regarding additional retroactive fire sprinkler requirements.
Operational response benefits of retroactive fire sprinkler installations were generally divided between two positions. First, retroactive installation benefits were considered to be nearly the same as those most often cited for any fire sprinklered building. For instance, the
Local Government Association (U.K.) (2012), notes that the principle benefit of fire sprinklers in general was the reduction of firefighter exposure to dangerous conditions. The Local Government
Association (U.K.) (2012), also cited fewer false alarm responses, the reduction of both number
of personnel and apparatus at a sprinklered building fire event, and the lower duration each unit
(personnel and apparatus) must spend at an incident. The benefits identified above were similar Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 28 to the views expressed by Padgett (Padgett, personal communication, February 24, 2016) and
(Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016) with regards to a lower number of personnel on scene and a lower overall length of time on scene during a fire incident. Interestingly, the
Local Government Association (U.K.) did not focus on the benefit of increased occupant safety which is something that each of the experts noted during their interviews (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016), (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016),
(Padgett, personal communication, February 24, 2016), and (Woody, personal communication,
April 5, 2016).
According to Hall, Ahrens, and Evarts (2012), fire sprinklers also have a positive operational response benefit in the form of reduced firefighter fireground injuries, at least in residential settings. They estimate that fireground injuries to firefighters are reduced by up to
65% per 100 fires, when fire sprinklers are installed. Woody, (Woody, personal communication,
April 5, 2016), noted a similar sentiment in his written response in that retroactive installations could make for a safer fire attack, which would also reduce the risk to fire department personnel on the fireground. Additionally, from an operational response angle, this could mean that firefighting is safer for firefighters, which could leave more resources available for other responses, as noted by Power (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016).
As noted by Rabel (2009), another operational response benefits of sprinklers is the limitation on fire growth and spread, which allows for a later arrival of fire department staff to begin fireground operations. This is particularly important due to the funding constraints facing most fire departments in the United States, as most do not have sufficient resources to meet nationally recognized response time or effective firefighting force standards. It should also be noted that this could also have a positive effect on fire department member safety during Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 29 emergency response, in that staff may be less likely to operate fire department apparatus beyond the capabilities of the vehicle when responding, thus preventing another major risk to firefighter safety, enroute emergency vehicle traffic accidents. In each of these scenarios, additional retroactive fire sprinklers could play an important role.
When evaluating what criteria should be used to determine retroactive fire sprinkler installation, Millan (2010), noted that any positive benefits of retrofitting fire sprinklers must be weighed against other installation challenges including the upfront capital outlay, work space disruption to building occupants, and physical barriers. It is likely that in any case where retrofitting of fire sprinkler is required, that there will be opposition, and an agency must be prepared to address the issue. The reasonableness issue was noted by Welch (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016), as some retroactive requirements could be deemed arduous to the public. It would appear that regardless of where a retroactive installation threshold was set, whether it was on some building percentage basis, square footage, or time to complete, individual cases could make the installation requirement appear overly burdensome on the one hand, and in a completely different sense, not restrictive enough on the other.
As noted in the limitations, there is a lack of data that is specific to fire sprinkler retrofit criteria, however, as with other scholarly research, a widely used approach is to look to other disciplines to compare their experiences and methodology.
For instance, seismic stability retrofit installations are relatively common, especially in the western half of the United States and there is a significant amount of data on the criteria used to require seismic stability retrofits. As an example, Mehary and Disicka (2015), noted that a cost benefit approach could be used as a criteria. In their study, bridges were evaluated based on the expected costs incurred with earthquake scenarios, both in their as built states as well as after Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 30
retrofit. Using this example, the fire service in general and the City of Fresno in particular could calculate a cost benefit ratio using various provision of service, rate of response and other metrics to ascertain if retrofitting sprinklers in a given building, area, or other location meets a specific cost or risk threshold.
As noted by Giovinazzi and Pampanin (2008), another approach used in the field of seismic stability retrofitting is a multi-criteria decision analysis approach which can account for both monetary and non-monetary costs for retrofitting. This process uses management and engineering levels to make a determination: The management level chooses an option
(considering all of the established management goals) based upon several validated, acceptable solutions proposed by the engineering level. In essence, engineers are free to put forward several ways to achieve a desired level of seismic performance without regard for costs or other constraints, and management chooses a method based upon the competing interests, arriving at the optimal solution. This approach could be used as an evaluation tool for fire sprinkler retrofitting, though the following questions might be asked: What is the triggering event causing the evaluation, and does there necessarily have to be a single, specific triggering event?
Both Power and Welch (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016), (Welch,
personal communication, February 24, 2016) noted that building remodel or additions would
trigger retrofitting requirements for fire sprinklers in specific buildings within their respective
jurisdictions, however, what about more macro issues like a lack of appropriate fire department
funding, staffing, equipment, etc. that were identified by a grand jury or community risk
assessment? Would any political entity be willing to admit that any of these factors played a role
in having additional fire sprinkler retrofitting requirements? Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 31
With regards to building sustainability being influenced by additional retroactive fire
sprinkler installations, Meacham, Poole, Echeverria and Cheng (2012), noted that in most “green”
building standards fire protection is not an explicitly considered criteria. Meacham, et. al. (2012), also found that in some regulatory schemes dealing with sustainability, fire protection features may not be considered with the same relative value as “green” features. These issues could be substantial as retroactive fire sprinkler criteria are developed. For instance, if an existing structure is completing an energy upgrade as part of a sustainability project, then the use of fire sprinklers to mitigate unproven materials, or materials that may have not been tested to current fire resistance rating standards could be used to facilitate the building’s sustainability project.
Vecchiarelli (2014), noted that fire safety can be considered a sustainable practice, as a
reduction in the number of or severity of fire(s) can reduce environmental impacts on the air and
wasted materials. Extrapolated further, retroactive fire sprinkler installations in existing buildings
could also reduce the need to harvest timber materials for construction purposes, since existing
materials in the building would not need to be replaced for new construction, and any fire in the
building would be smaller in scope.
Another item mentioned by Vecchiarelli (2014), was the reduction of other materials used
in the furtherance of building sustainability, like flame retardants. Though there is a miniscule
amount of data on the subject of exposure to these chemicals, additional retroactive fire sprinkler
installations could reduce their use, thus lowering any exposure effects.
Asdrubalia, D'Alessandrob, and Schiavonic (2015), note that natural and recycled
materials, though not widely used yet, could be a major source of sustainable building materials in
the form of insulation, because of the high environmental costs during the production of
“traditional” insulation products. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 32
Messerschmidt (2016), however, noted that combustible construction materials, which include combustible insulation products, must also be considered in light of fire performance.
Additional retroactive fire sprinkler installations could permit the wider use of these types of materials, thus expanding building sustainability in both permissible materials and reduced water consumption during a fire event.
It appears that there is agreement that somehow fire protection and building sustainability must coexist. Though to what degree varies widely on where the person making that subjective judgment is in the scheme of building development. Many of the thoughts of the experts interviewed depended a great deal on their personal experience with sustainable building retrofits, and it is likely that their attitudes may change as they gain more experience in this area and the field begins to mature.
From an economic benefit standpoint, the data also skews depending on whether the issue is viewed from a government (or public safety) perspective versus that of private business. As an example of the latter, Millan (2010), noted that in some cases the criteria for fire sprinkler retrofit installation may simply be tenant demand. This appears to be outside the traditional thoughts of those addressing the issue from the regulatory field, as simple market forces sometimes determine whether a fire sprinkler retrofit is undertaken or not. This is also a perspective that none of the experts identified through their written responses or interviews.
When examining this issue, the private economic benefits noted by the experts were generally limited to insurance savings which was noted by both Power and Welch (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016), (Welch, personal communication, February 24,
2016). Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 33
Millan (2010), also noted in a different article that a fire sprinkler system retrofit may serve as a distinguishing characteristic, where sprinkler installations are not required by code for existing buildings, as proof that a building’s owner is willing to go above the minimum in terms of safety or building investment. Again, this is not a perspective that was identified by any of the experts.
As noted by the National Fire Sprinkler Association (1993), when discussing retrofit economics, there is the potential to recover the costs of retrofitting fire sprinklers through reduced insurance premiums and through tax reductions. These reductions are then calculated against a
“payback” date after which the installed fire protection system has paid for itself and continues to offer savings over time. This same point was mentioned by both Power and Welch during their interviews (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016), (Welch, personal communication,
February 24, 2016).
Fire & Rescue (2007), also noted traditional economic benefits, which included the ability of an apartment complex owner in Norway to add additional dwelling units (which assumes increasing property value and additional subsequent rent payments) in a previously unused attic space, because of a retrofit fire sprinkler installation. This is similar to an opinion shared by
Power (Power, personal communication, February 8, 2016), where she noted that economic benefits could include permitting expanded development into areas where it would have been prohibited, provided all of the existing structures were retrofitted with fire sprinklers.
Banfield, Rehou, Gomez, Redelmeier and Jeschke (2015), note that at least in the case of residential fire sprinklers, the economic benefits of retroactive fire sprinkler requirements can be justified by the enormous burdens placed on the healthcare system because of burn injuries and Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 34
the costs of residential fires. This foundation is a similar argument to the one made by Woody
(Woody, personal communication, April 5, 2016) during his interview regarding injuries.
Isman, (1995), noted that both liability avoidance in the form of addressing the
“reasonable standard of care” judicial test, and business continuity are also substantial economic
benefits when considering the retroactive fire sprinkler installations.
Welch (Welch, personal communication, February 24, 2016) noted an intriguing position
in that, in addition to the traditional economic benefits, a potential benefit to fire departments may
be reduced exposure risks to firefighters during manual firefighting operations. These economic
benefits may include fewer firefighter injuries or fatalities, overtime in response to backfilling for
injured workers, etc. Each of these economic benefits could have a profound effect on the
allocation of resources of the Department, or the City of Fresno in general.
Based upon the referenced materials and analysis noted above, there are a number of
organizational implications. One of the main concerns is the lack of data which is specific to fire
sprinkler retrofits, both in a quantitative and qualitative sense. The City of Fresno Fire
Department, like many agencies during this most recent economic downturn, has had its funding
reduced (especially for support functions like data collection) and yet without appropriate data, it
will be difficult to provide meaningful statistics which could support additional fire sprinkler
retrofit requirements. Investing in this type of data capture would have both current and ongoing
budgetary impacts, and may not be supported at the City administration level.
Implications concerning the criteria for retrofit installations seem to be less driven by the
organizational issues, and more by those who would ultimately be subject to the additional requirements. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 35
Additional organizational impacts from increased fire sprinkler retrofit requirements would also be ongoing training for existing staff to verify retroactive installations follow adopted standards and there could be additional hiring requirements for the fire department as the volume of work generated as a result of these new requirements may not permit timely inspection of work by existing staff.
Because there are likely operational fire department savings to be had with additional retroactive fire sprinkler requirements, it seems entirely likely that it would be possible to overcome some of these issues by a re-allocation of existing Department resources, either in staffing or budget.
Recommendations
The City of Fresno should adopt additional retroactive fire sprinkler requirements in the upcoming 2016 – 2017 local code adoption process. Prior to the local adoption occurring, City of
Fresno Fire Department administration staff should complete community-wide outreach to both internal and external stakeholders. These stakeholders should include at a minimum, the City
Administration (including the Mayor’s office, City Manager’s Office, and Council members and staff), the Building Industry Association of Fresno and Madera Counties, local civic groups (i.e.
Rotary International, Kiwanis, etc.) as well additional groups, for instance Community Care
Licensing of Fresno County and the Department’s firefighters (Local 753). Both anecdotal evidence and data regarding the potential benefits of these requirements (and how they affect each group) should be compiled and disseminated. This material should also be made available for general consumption by the public on the Department’s web site. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 36
The Department should also prepare a series of matrices which demonstrates how each specific retroactive requirement can be expected to affect the Department either through building code adjustments, a change in deployment or resources, a change in equipment or service, etc.
A staff report which details these items should be completed prior to the formal adoption of the 2016 Fresno Municipal Code and it should recommend that the Council adopt these new requirements.
The Department must also complete a program evaluation model and schedule which would measure the impacts of the requirements, and use the outcomes to provide a historical context for future modifications or alterations to the newly adopted requirements.
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 37
References
Asdrubalia, F., D'Alessandrob, F., Schiavonic, S. (2015). A review of unconventional sustainable
building insulation materials.
Sustainable Materials and Technologies, Vo l 4 July 2015
Ayaz, E., Yang, F. (2009). Embodied carbon in materials can’t be ignored.
Retrieved from: http://www.di.net/articles/zero_carbon/
Banfield, J., Rehou, S., Gomez, M., Redelmeier, D.A., Jeschke, M.D. (2015). Healthcare costs of
burn patients from homes without fire sprinklers.
Retrieved from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4286513/
Beal, J. H. (2015). Benefits of adopting the icc performance code for buildings and facilities
within the city of fresno.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy
Beal, J. H. (2014). Benefits of lowering the installation threshold of fire sprinklers within the city
of fresno.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy
Booth, C. A., Hammond, F. N., Lamond, J. E., Proverbs, D. G. (eds) (2012). Solutions to climate
change challenges in the built environment.
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
Borgardt, R. H. (n.d.) Council position policy paper subject: Automatic fire sprinklers/multi-
family mortgage revenue bonds.
Fresno, CA: City of Fresno Fire Department
California Building Standards Commission. (2013). 2013 California Existing Building Code.
Sacramento, CA: State of California
City of Fresno. (n.d.). About fresno fire. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 38
Retrieved from:
http://www.fresno.gov/Government/DepartmentDirectory/Fire/AboutFresnoFire/default.ht
m
City of Fresno. (2016). Annual report generator.
Fresno, CA: Fresno Fire Department
Colby, S. L., Ortman, J. M. (2014). The baby boom cohort in the united states: 2012 to 2060.
U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census
Bureau: Washington D.C.
Cowan, D. J. (2010). A roadmap to success: Retroactive sprinkler ordinances.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy
Fire & Rescue. (2007). Timely retrofit of a fire sprinkler system: Blazemaster saves 40 lives.
Fire & Rescue, Vol 66 2007
Fink, A. L. (1991). Impact of automatic sprinklers on fire department growth.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy
Fleming, R. P. (2012). Fire sprinklers and sustainability.
Retrieved from: http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/files/research/research-
foundation/symposia/2012-symposium/fleming_presentation.pdf?la=en.
Giovinazzi, S., Pampanin, S. (2008). Multi-criteria approaches for earthquake retrofit strategies
at regional scale.
Retrieved from:
http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/4029/12625559_PCEE_Giovinazzi%20-
%20Pampanin.pdf;jsessionid=32E60ED5D55176FBF9E321BD5E1A0948?sequence=1
Hall, J. R., Ahrens, M., Evarts, B. (2012). Sprinkler impact on fire injury. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 39
Quicy, MA: Fire Protection Research Foundation
International Code Council. (2011). 2012 International existing building code.
Country Club Hills, IL: International Code Council
Isman, K. E. (1995). Fire sprinklers save live and money…The economics of retrofit.
Retrieved from:
http://www.firemarshalsarchives.org/pdf/F2%20-%20FIRE%20SPRINKLERS%20SAVE
%20LIVES%20AND%20MONEY.pdf
Local Government Association. (2012). Sprinklers in high rise flats.
Retrieved from:
http://www.local.gov.uk/fire-and-rescue-services/ /journal_content/56/10180/3794870/
ARTICLE
Meacham, B., Poole, B., Echeverria, J., Cheng, R. (2012). Fire safety challenges of green
buildings.
Quincy, MA: Fire Protection Research Foundation
Mehary, S.T., Dusicka, P. (2015). Seismic retrofit benefit considering statewide transportation
assessment.
Retrieved from:
http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/ResearchReports/SRS500_480_FinalReport.p
df
Messerschmidt, B. (2016). Buildings on fire.
Retrieved from:
http://safeandsustainablebuildings.com/buildings-on-fire/
Millan, N. (2010). Sprinkler system advances ease retrofit. Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 40
Retrieved from:
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/firesafety/article/Sprinkler-System-Advances-Ease-Retrofit--
11843?source=part
Millan, N. (2010). Sprinkler system retrofit benefits.
Retrieved from:
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/firesafety/article/Sprinkler-System-Retrofit-Benefits-
Facilities-Management-Fire-Safety-Feature—11844
Millan, N. (2010). Sprinkler retrofit project considerations.
Retrieved from:
http://www.facilitiesnet.com/firesafety/article/Sprinkler-Retrofit-Project-Considerations--
11845?source=part
Moore, C. A. (1993). Cost reductions in water distribution infrastructure through regional
applications of fire sprinklers.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy
Municode. (n.d.). Codes, fresno, ca.
Retrieved from:
https://www.municode.com/library/ca/fresno/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=MUCOF
R_CH10REREPUNUREPRCOUS_ART5FIPR
National Fire Protection Association/Fire Sprinkler Initiaitive.org. (2016). Home fire sprinkler
"Trade-Ups.
Retrieved from:
http://www.firesprinklerinitiative.org/advocacy-tools/for-builders/sprinkler-trade-ups.aspx Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 41
National Fire Protection Association. (1925). The story of fresno; A tale of redemption of a fire
department.
Quarterly, No Vol, April, 1925
National Fire Sprinkler Association. (2006). Fire sprinkler retrofit…A step by step approach for
communities.
Patterson, NY: National Fire Sprinkler Association
National Fire Sprinkler Association Northern Illinois Chapter. (1993). Nfsa northern illinois
chapter: States take lead in retrofit sprinklerlaws.
Sprinkler Quarterly, Vol 83 Summer 1993
Randall, J.L. (1974). How the city of fresno reached an iso class 2 rating [Sic] automatic fire
extinguishing system.
Fresno, CA: City of Fresno Fire Department
Rabel, L. (2009). Residential fire sprinklers and their impact to the fire service system in
washington state.
Olympia, WA: Washington Building Code Council
Scommegna, P. (2013). Aging u.s. baby boomers face more disability.
Retrieved from: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2013/us-baby-boomers.aspx
Socha, S. D. (2008). Sprinklers are not optional: A proactive approach to risk reduction at the
mohegan tribe.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy
Stupka III, J.O. (2004). Adopting fire sprinklers practically.
Emmitsburg, MD: National Fire Academy Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 42
United States Census Bureau. (2010). American Factfinder, ACS demographic and housing
estimates. Retrieved January 4, 2016 from the United States Census Bureau website:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk
United States Census Bureau. (2016). (Rev. 02-Dec-2015) State & county quickfacts.
Retrieved January 4, 2016 from the United States Census Bureau website:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0627000.html
United State Department of Energy. (2012). Notes on embodied energy.
Retrieved January 11, 2016 from the United States Department of Energy website:
http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/TableView.aspx?table=Notes
United State Fire Administration. (2016). Executive analysis of fire service operations in
emergency management (Student manual) (6th ed.).
Emmitsburg, MD: Author.
United States Fire Administration. (2014). Strategic plan fiscal years 2014 – 2018.
Emmitsburg, MD: Author.
Weimer, D.L., Vining, A. R. (2011). Policy Analysis: Concepts and practice (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Vecchiarelli, T. (2014). Fire safety in a sustainable world.
Retrieved from: http://www.nfpa.org/news-and-research/resources/fire-service-
resources/nfpa-and-sustainability/fire-safety-in-a-sustainable-world Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 43
Appendix A
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 44
Appendix B
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 45
Appendix C
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 46
Appendix D
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 47
Appendix E
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 48
Running Head: ADDITIONAL RETROACTIVE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS 49