October 28, 2014
Help, there’s a bureaucrat in our bedrooms! Minnesotans are becoming aware that there’s a new state mandate on the horizon: that new single-family homes must have a sprinkler system installed. In this article, we’ll discuss what this requirement will mean for home buyers, where the push for this new mandate comes from, and better alternatives for fire safety than government edicts.
Underwriters Laboratories conducts fire testing of floor joists protected by a ceiling
The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (DLI), an unelected agency which holds the power to unilaterally revise the state’s residential building code, has issued a new regulation that single-family homes must have a fire sprinkler system installed. The legislature has been attempting to stop the new mandate, however, Governor Dayton has vetoed all attempts to do so. Without new legislation, the new rule automatically goes into effect in January 2015.
Problems with the sprinkler mandate
At this point, the pending requirement would only apply to “luxury” homes of over 4500 square feet. But once enacted, it will be all too easy to expand it to include all homes.
The main objection to home sprinklers has been cost. It’s true, it will force buyers of new homes to pay an additional $5000 to $10,000, and perhaps more. Cost is an important factor, but that’s often not enough to sway public opinion when a new mandate “can save just one life”.
There are other reasons to be concerned about a sprinkler mandate. Depending on the type of system installed, should it begin to leak, it could lead to toxic mold which can be a serious health hazard. Another concern is a question of reliability. In commercial buildings which have maintenance staff, upkeep can be performed on sprinkler systems. That will not be the case with residential systems, which will go unmaintained for decades. Systems out of use for so long have a high likelhood of failing to operate when they are needed.
Laws and regulations always lead to unintended consequences. Should problems with home sprinkler systems become widespread, it may inevitably lead to yet aonther state mandate: mandatory inspections of home sprinkler systems and perhaps a taxpayer-funded program to make sure such inspections happen.
This issue came up in a recent gubernatorial debate, where each of the candidates voiced their opinion in favor or opposition to the mandate. Unfortunately, all candidates displayed an ignorance of this issue (the Libertarian candidate was excluded from the debate). The media has also failed to perform any investigative journalism to educate the public about the root cause of this concern.
What’s driving the sprinkler requirement
Lightweight I-joist
Here is some background on what’s behind this mandate, which most in the public are not aware of.
In the past, homes have been built with traditional 2×10 solid wood floor joists. But today, a new lightweight construction method has increasingly come into use for floor and roof support, known as “engineered lumber” or I-joists. Its advantages include a lower cost and an ability to carry a greater load with less lumber than traditional construction.
But the past several years have begun to reveal a serious problem with the use of engineered lumber. As those who’ve thrown a large log onto a campfire know, the log can burn for quite some time and still remain solid. The same is true for traditional solid wood floor joists, which retain their structural strength for some time even while burning. However, an I-joist is comprised of two narrow strips of wood with a thin sheet between them made of compressed wood fragments (particleboard). These I-joists are just as strong as traditional lumber under normal conditions. But in the event of a fire, they disintegrate quickly.
Very quickly. In a home fire, these joists may last as little as 5 minutes. That’s right about the time the fire department is arriving on the scene. Firefighters, expecting to have time to enter a home to rescue its occupants, have died on numerous occasions when the floor collapsed beneath them. That’s what happened in Green Bay, Wisconsin, as described in this report by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) when one firefighter died upon entering a burning home. (The disintegration of lightweight I-joists can be seen in the third photo of the report.) Here’s a news video clip from Virginia about the dangers posed by these lightweight materials during a fire.
As a result, fire departments have been pushing on state agencies, including the Minnesota Dept of Labor and Industry, to require sprinklers in the residential building code.
Sprinklers are not the answer
Sprinklers are a possible solution, but may lead to problems in themselves as described above. Libertarians oppose a government mandate to impose sprinkler systems upon homeowners. Lightweight I-joists are the source of the problem, but Libertarians do not necessarily support banning this type of construction either. That would only be another step down the road of creeping authoritarianism, where that which is not mandated is banned.
Lightweight I-joists might work if covered with a fire-retardent coating. And they’ve already been proven to work better under fire conditions where they are not exposed to the space below, but are protected by a ceiling. This has been proven by tests conducted by Underwriters Laboratories (UL), as shown in this multimedia presentation which discusses fire conditions in a basement where I-joists are exposed in one scenario, and protected by a ceiling in another scenario.
Here are two charts indicating the results of these UL tests. This first UL Chart 1 shows the results of a fire on unprotected joists, where exposed lightweight I-joists last for only 5 minutes, while “legacy” (traditional solid wood) joists last for nearly 20 minutes in a fire. The “visible flames” marker indicates penetration of the floor by fire and final failure of the structure. But in UL Chart 2, the joists are protected by a non-fire-rated ceiling such as gypsum wallboard. The results are considerably better. The lightweight I-joists last for 25 minutes, and “legacy” 2×10 traditional joists last for a very long 45 minutes before failure. This shows that even minimal protection of the lightweight joists can be highly effective in making a burning home evacuable, even without a sprinkler system.
For those who want to delve into this issue, this lengthy white paper report by UL further discusses construction material testing methods and results.
Libertarian solutions
The NFPA and UL are performing excellent work. Neither of them are government agencies. These organizations are functioning as market-based regulators by testing materials and promoting safety standards. As a result of their efforts, the public is beginning to learn about the hazards of lightweight home construction and are gaining the awareness to act accordingly.
However, these organizations are now erring by pressing state governments to enact new regulations. This is not the proper approach. It is the NFPA and various fire departments who have been lobbying the Minnesota Dept of Labor and Industry (DLI) to enact a sprinkler mandate. But Libertarians believe that it’s misguided to mandate sprinkler systems as a one-size-fits-all solution. In fact, no government action at all is required to address this issue. Instead, free-market approaches should be employed. Such as:
– Firefighters should not be appealing to state governments, but to insurers. Home insurers have a strong incentive to make sure homes are safe, and it is they whom the NFPA and fire departments should be lobbying. Insurers do not like multimillion dollar payouts for property damage and loss of life claims to homeowners and firefighters. If an insurance company is unwilling to insure a home due to potential claims resulting from shoddy building practices, this would be a powerful incentive for a potential home buyer to avoid purchasing the home. If people are unwilling to buy homes, homebuilders will not make much money building such housing only for it to remain unsold. If insurance companies understand that it is their role, not the government’s, to enforce safe building construction, the marketplace will quickly trend toward safer practices.
– This is an entrepreneurial opportunity. It should be up to home buyers, not government bureaucrats, to decide what is acceptably safe for the property they choose to purchase. But most home buyers aren’t knowledgeable about building materials and methods … nor do they need to be. If a person isn’t sure how to file their own taxes, they can hire an expert, an accountant, to do this for them. If a person doesn’t know how to seek justice in court, they can hire an attorney to act on their behalf. Similarly, this situation presents an opportunity for entrepreneurs who are familiar with home construction to offer their services to potential home buyers. They could act as buyer-advocates, inspecting homes prior to purchase, reviewing the workmanship and building materials used, even investigating the track records of the contractors, before making a recommendation to those who are considering a purchase. For many people, a new home will be the biggest investment of their lives. They would be well-advised to hire such an expert to act on their behalf. And it’s not a novel concept. There are already organizations which are beginning to fill this role.
Unlike Democratic and Republican career politicians who are experienced only at legislating, several of our Libertarian candidates and in our LPMN leadership come from industry, where we’ve gained hands-on knowledge about these types of issues. In addition to being advocates for liberty, we can bring real expertise and know-how to the table for Minnesotans. Please support our candidates on November 4th.
For Liberty,
S.L. Malleck
LPMN Vice Chair
Concerned about the expansion of government control and the erosion of individual liberty? Please consider joining and becoming active with the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. Libertarians support liberty on all issues, all the time! Libertarianism is a philosophical and political movement to promote personal freedom, strong civil liberties, a genuinely free marketplace, and peace.
.