Resources

 
WATER COMPANY DEMAND TARIFF FOR SPRINKLERS

In early 1999, a committee was formed by John Brenner, the Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency Services Institute; its purpose was to discuss the issue of "standby" fees imposed by water utilities on those facilities that are protected with automatic sprinkler systems. The committee was comprised of:

Don Konkle Chief, Harrisburg Fire Department

Mac Fleming Manager, National Fire Sprinkler Association

Richard Myers Assistant Chief, Lower Swatara Fire Department

Leo Magee Communale Fire Protection, Inc.

John Brenner Executive Director, PF&ESI

John Waters Chief Fire Marshal, Upper Merion Township

From the beginning, the committee felt that it was pursuing equity. They felt that the present system of standby fees unfairly impacted those who invested in fire protection for their buildings. After a number of meetings, the committee landed upon the idea of a "Fire Service Demand Tariff." It was Chief Konkle, of the Harrisburg Fire Department, who brought this concept to the committee's attention; its support was unanimous and instantaneous.

Some background, according to the National Fire Protection Association, fire departments across the United States respond to about 2,000,000 -2,500,000 fire emergencies per year. A breakdown shows:

It is interesting to note that only 3.9% of our runs are to the "American Community," defined as public assembly, educational, health care, correctional, mercantile and business occupancies. The industrial environment comprises only 2.1% of our emergency responses, yet when one looks at where property damages occur; it tells quite a different story.

The "American Community" comprises only 3.9% of our responses, but suffers 15.3% of the direct property damage! Similarly, the Industrial Environment comprises 2.1% of our responses, but suffers 15.5% of the direct property damage

Studies have shown that the key point in a fire scenario is flashover, defined by NFPA as "A stage in the development of a contained fire in which all exposed surfaces reach ignition temperatures more or less simultaneously and fire spreads rapidly throughout the space." To significantly impact the status quo, we must prevent flashover, but how?

Traditionally, fire departments classify response time as the interval between the tones going off and our arrival on the scene. In a research paper submitted to the National Fire Academy, a different view of response time was presented; it included a number of steps including:

• Time to receipt of alarm at the central station

• Alarm processing

• Receipt of alarm at the 911 center

• Alarm processing and dispatch

• Turn-out time

• Travel time and, finally,

• Set-up time

This study definitively showed that without including detection time and travel time, staffed fire departments had an average response time of 4.2 minutes and unstaffed fire department had an average response time of 6.3 minutes.

And the time to flashover, about 3.3 minutes. Essentially, this study showed that fire departments, career or volunteer, cannot respond fast enough to impact flashover; that only an installed system will work; and therein lies the issue, those who invest in fire protection pay a premium, those who don't pay nothing. Is this equity? The committee did not think so.

Today's system of "standby" fees are based upon the size of the water meter serving the fire protection system; the larger the meter, the greater amount the property owner pays to the water utility. One of the larger water utilities in the commonwealth adopted the following fee schedule for fiscal 1999:

Meter Size Yearly fee:

To look at it another way, imagine two identical office buildings, each about 200,000 square feet. Building "A," protected with an automatic sprinkler system, will pay $3,000+ to the water utility for the privilege of having this system; building "B," without such a system, pays nothing. In the event of fire, building "A's" fireflow will be about 500 gallons per minute, while building "B" will need over 3,500 gallons per minute. Building "B" will be greater burden to both the fire department and the water utility, yet pays nothing! Where is the equity in this?

The committee looked at a number of alternatives to the current system, including the elimination of standby fees. It did not, however, feel that this had a reasonable chance of success. Instead, it is proposing a "Fire Service Demand Tariff." This tariff, paid to water utilities, would be based upon required fireflows. In buildings protected by an automatic sprinkler system, the fireflow would be based upon the hydraulic design of the system; in buildings without such protection, the fireflow would be based upon and accepted engineering calculations.

The committee looked at two such formulas; the Iowa State University method, based upon volume and the Insurance Services Office method, which takes into consideration construction, occupancy, exposure and communication. The committee felt that engineering calculations were fair, objective and without prejudice.

Eliminating the "standby" fee dis-incentive to the installation of automatic protection would encourage building owners to invest in automatic fire protection for their buildings. Such installations can show ongoing, long-term advantages to water utilities, fire departments and the communities they serve. These advantages include:

• Less unaccounted for water

• Smaller fires

• Enhanced firefighter safety

• Enhanced community vitality

"Unaccounted for" water is the difference between the gallons that a water company sends out per day, and the gallons for which they can bill. Simply put, any water that does not pass through a consumer's water meter is "unaccounted for." In general, anytime a fire department hooks up to a hydrant and flows water, that water is "unaccounted for."

Studies have shown that most fires in buildings equipped with automatic sprinklers are controlled with one or two heads, flowing less than 100gpm.

Smaller fires means safer fireground operations and communities without burned-out hulks of buildings impacting property values. Everyone wins with the installation of automatic fire protection systems.

This proposal was presented to the Statewide Advisory Board on 14 November 1999. They supported this concept and adopted the ISO method for fireflow calculations as a part of their acceptance.

It is PFESI's intent to take the next two years educating those groups who would be impacted by this change. They have prepared an educational program for building owners and their associations, chambers of commerce, water utilities and their associations, fire departments and their groups and anyone else who might like to discuss this issue. After this educational effort, they intend to go the legislative route, attempting to change from the current system of standby fees to a fire service demand tariff system. They know that this is a major change in philosophy and we need the fire service's help in accomplishing this task.

If you have any questions, or would like to arrange for a presentation, kindly contact:

Tom Savage, III, Executive Director

Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency Services Institute

717-236-5995

fireservpa@verizon.net