Professional Documents
Culture Documents
61
March 1985
Regulatory Fraud
In 1980, at the time of the writing of the referenced report 4. The NFPA design code for residential sprinklers pro-
(FM RC Serial No. 22574), following the government funded duced a sprinkler system "too costly to be widely
research into residential sprinklers, the 1975 NFPA-13D installed".
residential sprinkler standard, was in force. What did the Well, didn't the F.M. engineers describe one hell of a
U.S. funded F.M. research program conclude about NFPA- situation? We have a number one fire problem in America. It
13D. Here we quote directly from the F.M. engineering - accounts for 77 percent of all fire deaths in the U.S. (mostly
research report No. 22574. the elderly and the children, incidently). And this nation's
-5-
leading fire safety organization, the NFPA, has countered the CODE MAKING BEFORE THE DATA IS
problem with a standard that defines a system "too costly" AVAILABLE
to be useful.
I was completely astounded in 1980, when the NFPA at its
The 1980 NFPA - Code national convention in San Diego referenced fire research
Between 1975 and 1980 the U.S. Federal Government data that "proved" that the standard, low cost sprinklers
financed much research into residential sprinklers. Spending would not function properly in a residence. At the time we
went into the millions. But, when it came to producing a had over 80 years' experience with "standard" sprinkler heads
standard to define the "new" residential sprinkler system, they in nursing homes, hotels, clubs, rooming houses, hospitals
went back to the same fire code establishment source for the and similar light hazard properties. The 80 years of actual data
code writing. In 1980 the NFPA produced its "corrected" showed loss of life in sprinklered buildings very close to zero.
standard for residential sprinklers, No. 13-D (1980). This was a For 80 years the "old" heads worked, nearly perfectly. How
revision to the 1975 issue which F.M. concluded was "too come, then, federally funded research suddenly "proved" the
costly to be widely installed". What changes did NFPA make? opposite?
They are listed below: In San Diego, I found that the new code (13-D, 1980) was
1. The permitted sprinkler spacing was reduced from 256 to be voted into existing without first being a "temporary
sq. ft. to 150 sq. ft. (more sprinklers needed to do the standard" for a year, as was the normal procedure, and I found
job). out the research that proved the "old sprinklers would not
2. The inexpensive standard sprinkler was barred from use. work" was not yet published and available to those who would
A new fast sprinkler was mandated for residences at vote. And I found that the "new", fast sprinklers were not yet
much higher cost. approved or being manufactured. But, we were told, the
3. The requirement that the system be fed by a water matter of the new code was "so vital" that the extremely
supply greater than that available in most homes was unusual procedures to standardize before the data was pub-
retained. (13-D, 1980 requires 38 gpm. The rating of lished, was justified because human safety in dwellings was
most 5/8 or 3/4 inch residential meters and supply lines such a critically important issue (after 84 years without a
is 25 gpm). practical code).
In short, the "too costly to be widely installed" 1975 code I made it my business to find and analyze the research data
was replaced by a substantially more costly 1980 code. Now that "proved" the "old" heads would not work in a residence.
isn't that a situation when one considers the fact that 77 The research procedures were astounding.
percent of all fire deaths occur in the home.
NOWONDER "THAT OLD SPRINKLER" FAILED 11110
WHAT FACTORY MUTUAL DID NOT SAY I could not believe that a proper research program could
Although the findings of the Factory Mutual engineers, as "prove" conventional sprinklers would not save lives in a
per the quotes from FMRC Serial No. 22574, could be taken dwelling because for 80 years sprinklers had been almost 100
as a devastating indictment of the NFPA, F.M. did not directly percent perfect at protecting life. But after I studied the
make any such judgments or accusations. Indeed, they might research report, I knew how the researchers had reached the
have, but did not, make the following observations: conclusions they reached.
1. That the NFPA had been in existence for 79 years prior The fire research test room conditions varied, but under
to 1975, and was well aware of the carnage due to fire in some of the worst conditions (where most failures occurred)
the American home, and yet had not produced a sprink- the walls and the ceilings were sheathed with combustible
ler code pertinent to residences prior to 1975. materials. And under the most adverse conditions the fire was
2. That in the early 1970s Richard Patton had already located in the corner, and furniture was placed between the
pioneered and proven out a life safety sprinkler system sprinkler and the fire so the spray could not reach the fire.
and code that was unanimously endorsed by a research Realize, the fire was arranged to burn shielded from the
committee of representatives of virtually all of the sprinkler spray.
important code and fire safety organizations of the time:
including the three model building code organizations, Having set up test conditions where the room as well as the
contents were combustible, with the water spray prevented
(Uniform, Basic and Standard Building Codes organiza- from reaching the fire, a condition for "failure" was further
tions) and also the [AFC, the National Bureau of Stan- defined as follows:
dards, and even by the NFPA assigned committee man.
3. That after first cooperating with the Life Safety System 1. Theoretically, a person would remain in the fire room
research and code making, NFPA reversed itself, pro- for a full 15 minutes AFTER the sprinkler opened. In
duced its own residential standard, and worked to defeat other words, the sprinkler would operate, and then for
the wide acceptance of the Life Safety System arguing 15 minutes (as the obstructed fire continued to burn)
that their own new standard (13-D, 1975) would do the theoretically a person would remain within the room
job better. amidst the sprayed water and combustion products.
4. That at hearings Patton correctly argued that
NFPA-13-D was too costly to sell. It was only five years 2. Under the above conditions, if during the 15 minutes •
later (1980) when F.M. finally officially stated, that AFTER the sprinkler opened, the carbon monoxide
13-D was "too costly to be widely installed". By then, reached a level that would kill with approximately a
residential sprinklers had already been dealt a crippling ONE HOUR exposure time, the sprinkler head was
blow. judged to have "failed".
-6-
For those who do not realize it, a sprinkler is NOT They say the truth will set you free. I'm not so sure.
•
guaranteed to completely extinguish a fire. There can be The State Fire Marshal of California, and his staff produced
no such guarantee because a fire could be under a bed, a residential sprinkler code that truly makes sense. This
for example, or behind furniture, etc. The sprinkler standard; which ties into much of the Patton research:
system CONTROLS the fire, prevents flashover, keeps 1. Uses small orifice sprinkler and a finer spray to allow
the fire small, allows people safe exit from the im- homes to be protected with water already available
mediate fire area, drops the heat, and keeps the toxic within the home. There is no need to dig up the front
gases to a minute level when compared to the lawn to put in a new supply line especially for the
TREMENDOUS toxicity produced by an out of control sprinkler system.
fire. Sprinklers, nearly 100 percent of the time, prevent 2. Requires the water density proven adequate by research,
fire deaths under these parameters. Those who know fire and in line with "standard" protection in most other
sprinklers and who structured the test parameters industrial nations in the world. A water density of 0.05
undoubtedly were DELIBERATELY AND IN- GPM/sq. ft. is allowed.
TENTIONALLY setting conditions for failure so as to 3. Allows the use of the low cost sprinklers and the wider
GUARANTEE FAILURE! spacing normal to sprinkler design. The standard sprink-
INCREDIBLE! The test was structured to GUARANTEE ler covering 225 sq. ft. is permitted.
failure. 4. Allows other innovations that will result in a practical,
affordable, life safety system for the home.
FAST SPRINKLERS FAILED TOO
I continued my researching of the "research that proved THE BIG PICTURE
that sprinklers don't work". It was the fire test series con-
i
ducted in the City of Los Angeles during 1979 and 1980, Yes, Factory Mutual said it. Yes, it's true! The dwelling is
largely financed by the federal government. During this the number one fire problem in America. The 1975 NFPA-
test program prototypes of the "fast" sprinklers were also 13-D standard was too costly to be installed. The number of
tested. These "fast" sprinklers were not yet into the manu- sprinkler systems installed to meet the criteria of this code
facturing stage, and presumably were waiting on "favorable between 1975 and 1980 was probably less than 100.
conclusions" from the research program so as to justify
the manufacturing. In 1980 the NFPA revised their "too costly" sprinkler
Well, as I studied the research, it became apparent that system, and made it more costly. After nearly 100 years in
whether or not the sprinkler head was "fast" was irrelevant to existence, and 25 years after Richard Patton proved out the
the tests. Under the test conditions described above the "fast" technicalities for practical sprinkler systems, and more than
sprinklers "failed" just as readily as the "standard" sprinklers. 10 years after he proved them out in front of a panel of
Interestingly enough, there were MORE failures produced with national fire protection engineers, the NFPA codes still
the "fast" sprinklers than with the standard ones. represent a near insurmountable barrier to fire safety in the
home.
Another interesting thing I discovered was that this L.A.
test program was also used as a justification for reducing the The number of deaths that could have been prevented, but
allowed sprinkler spacing to 150 sq. ft. (1980 NFPA-13-D) weren't, must be well into the hundreds of thousands by
from a previously allowed spacing of 256 sq. ft. (1975 N FPA- now. And, a high percentage are children.
13-D). Yet, there were actually MORE failures during the test
program with sprinklers spaced 150 sq. ft. or less, than when
sprinkler spacing was more than 150 sq. ft. How about that! TOO MANY PROFESSIONALS LOOK THE OTHER
Of course, this "research" set the stage for forcing the public WAY
to buy more expensive sprinklers, and more of them, to gain a
When an honest engineer looks at the research that was
"certified" system. I personally believe that the research, the used as a basis to bar low cost sprinkler heads from use in the
misrepresenting of the research at the NFPA convention, and home, it is just so obviously spurious that one can only won-
the code locking the public into unnecessarily expensive der why it is that no public agency has as yet leveled charges
sprinkler systems, represented criminal fraud. of fraud and dishonesty against the perpetrators. I mean, the
data is there in black and white - how can any man of integrity
TRUTH IS NOT ALWAYS VICTORIOUS close his eyes to the situation? How can the fire "profes-
At the 1980 NFPA convention in San Diego, I went up to a sionals" close their eyes to what's going on, and the cost in
microphone during the preceedings and although the research human life?
referenced above was "not yet available", I told those as- The home is the number one fire problem in America, and
sembled the information I had developed, as outlined above. the child is the number one victim in the home. And, I am
But, there was a very well orchestrated presentation with afraid, that so long as manipulated research, orchestrated
important people in the fire protection community assuring codes, and indifference among the professionals prevails, that
he audience that the conventional sprinklers won't work it will continue to be so.
atisfactorily in the home (it was proven, they said), that the
otests proved that fast heads were needed, that the tests proved
the fast sprinklers would work better, that the test proved
reduced spacing was needed, etc. The well orchestrated shift to
the new standard No. 13-D, 1980, swept through of course.
THE AUTHOR'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE FAST RESPONSE SPRINKLER
The concept of the faster response sprinkler is a good one. 25 gpm water supply, three open sprinklers will spell system
In fact, in Patton Reports years ago, I advocated the develop- failure; indeed even two open heads will produce failure under
ment of faster response sprinklers as one of many changes many conditions in the home with the present regulations.
needed in the sprinkler system. When Harry Shaw was pro-
moting research into this matter for the National Fire Ad- The code fraud concept of pricing higher, and giving less,
ministration he called me in as a consultant, and I gave him my came through, in spades.
ideas. He told me that my writings on the subject were an in-
spiration for the research. In my judgment, the Federal Government in its usual way
came into the fire picture with the very best of intentions,
I have no conflict with the idea at all. What I find revolting, placed bureaucratic type minds in charge, appropriated 10 times
however, is that the price of entry into the marketplace for as much money as was needed, and assumed all would come
this device was instant corruption. The device rolled in on out well. Those who were in charge knew little to nothing
about true fire technology as opposed to code reading, even
manipulated research, falsifications, and trickery. It was used
to further increase system costs, further oversize pipe, and to less about the politics of fire; and their greatest fear was the
lock in on an atrocious excess of water requirement. Since the fear of making a decision without committee backup.
research was phony we still do not know how it will operate in
the home compared to the standard head. Those who recog- The sharks of fire safety came in with their white knights in
shining armor attire, volunteered their usual 1000 percent
nize no technology except a corrupted technology prevailed.
cooperation, stroked the right egos, and dazzled the govern-
ment worker with charm, expertise and affluence. And they
The "fast" sprinkler increases the chance for more than two led them right down the garden path.
sprinklers to open in a fire. If they were five gpm sprinklers,
and three opened, the 15 gpm needed would be available and The "fast" sprinkler could have been the key to unlock an
the fire would be controlled. When two open sprinklers are opening in the stone wall. Instead, it was used to further
keyed to approximately a 40 gpm flow in a home with a 15 to reinforce the fortress.
P. O. Box 41878 • Sacramento, California 95841 • Phone (916) 338-0943 • California Contractors License No. 355636