1 / 25

Smoke Alarms: A Local Fire Marshal Perspective

Smoke Alarms: A Local Fire Marshal Perspective. Gordon Simpkinson Acting Fire Marshal Palo Alto Fire Department http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/fire. Background (21 years in Fire Service). Acting Fire Marshal since 2008 Cert. in Fire Protection, UC Davis Ext.

vern
Download Presentation

Smoke Alarms: A Local Fire Marshal Perspective

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Smoke Alarms: A Local Fire Marshal Perspective Gordon Simpkinson Acting Fire Marshal Palo Alto Fire Department http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/fire

  2. Background (21 years in Fire Service) • Acting Fire Marshal since 2008 • Cert. in Fire Protection, UC Davis Ext. • 13 years fire protection plan check • 10 years fire investigations • First aware of this issue, July 2010 • Posted query on LAAFMA group • Suggested County FM’s take action • Developed Draft Code Amendments

  3. Santa Clara County Fire Marshals • SCCo Fire Marshals would prefer a Statewide approach • SCCo Fire Chiefs directed Fire Marshals to write letter to State Fire Marshal • SCCo Waiting for SFM recommendation • Palo Alto elected to take immediate action based on frequent disconnection and questionable smoldering fire response of ionization alarms

  4. City of Palo Alto • Interim Fire Chief, Building Official and Acting Fire Marshal agreed immediate action was needed. • November deadline for adoption of local code amendments in 2010 cycle • Proposed restrictions on ionization alarms • Council adopted recommendations with amendments • Dual sensor required (photo only within 20 feet of kitchen or room with fireplace.) • City Council accepted industry recommendation to maximize protection, but insisted on minimizing nuisance alarms

  5. Smoke Alarm Effectiveness? • 2006 -2008 US fatal fire data • 266 fatal fires SA present, but didn’t sound. • 474 fatal fires SA present, operation not known. • 706 fatal fires SA not present. • 1,272 fatal fires no SA data. • 468 fatal fires where SA “operated.” Source: http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v11i2.pdf, p. 8

  6. Smoke Alarm Effectiveness? • “Only 6% of U.S. homes are not equipped with smoke alarms, yet 40% of residences with fire had no installed alarm.” Source: http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v1i15-508.pdf, p. 1 • “The home fire death rate relative to number of fires is essentially unchanged from 1977 to 2003.” Source: http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/white-paper-alarms.pdf, p. 11

  7. Smoke Alarm Effectiveness? • About 650 people a year, or 17.5 percent of all home fire fatalities, die in fires at homes with nonworking smoke detectors, according to the National Fire Protection Association. Dead, missing or disconnected batteries were typically to blame. Source: http://www.insure.com/articles/homeinsurance/smoke-detectors.html, p. 1

  8. Smoke Alarm Effectiveness? • “And only 8% said their first thought on hearing a smoke alarm would be to get out!” Source: http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Public%20Education/EscapePlanningTips.pdf - How did smoke alarms become this unserious?

  9. Nuisance Alarms • “In the CPSC study, when batteries were removed or disconnected from alarms, the leading reason was unwanted activations.” Source: http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/smokefalse.pdf, p. 4 • “Frequent nuisance alarms can result in the occupant disabling the smoke alarm.” Source:NFPA 72-2010, SectionA.29.8.3.4(5)

  10. Nuisance Alarms • “A nuisance alarm is an unwanted activation of a smoke alarm in response to a stimulus that is not the result of a potentially hazardous fire...” Source:http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/FinalReportTaskGroupSmokeDetectionFollowUp.pdf, p. 128 • “…the occupantmay perceive the alarm activation as inconvenient, annoying, or vexatious… “External nuisance sources include cooking particles, steam, dust, insects, tobacco smoke, air circulated from heating equipment, and candle combustion products.” Source:http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/foia10/os/smokealarmnuisance.pdf, p.11

  11. Nuisance Alarms • Hartford Insurance (2002) Survey of 953 Adults • “ 28 percent of adults queried had disconnected smoke alarms in their homes and failed to reconnect them…” Source: http://www.securitysystemsnews.com/article/insurer-disabled-smoke-alarms-common • King County (2000 - 2002) Randomized Study 761 Households • “At 9 months after installation, 20% of ionization, vs 5% of photoelectric alarms were non-functional, a difference that persisted at 15 months, with the most common reasons for both types being a disconnected or absent battery. The risk ratio for ionization, relative to photoelectric alarms, being non-functional or removed was 2.7 (95% CI 1.8 to 4.1) at 15 months of follow-up.” Source: http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/14/2/80.full

  12. Nuisance Alarms • To silence a triggered smoke alarm, about 22% of consumers will remove the battery, leaving the alarm inoperable and potentially putting the residence and its occupants at risk should a true fire occur. Source: 1997 Fire Awareness/Escape Planning Study for National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, August 1997, Tables 3 & 4 • Alaskan Village Study (2002) • “92 percent of homes with ionization smoke alarms experienced nuisance alarms compared with only 11 percent of homes with photoelectric smoke alarms, a ratio of more than 8 to 1.” Source:http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia10/os/smokealarmnuisance.pdf, p. 14

  13. Nuisance Alarms In Woodlands Texas (1979), the high frequency of nuisance alarms caused the authorities to study both types of smoke alarms. Ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms were placed side by side in selected apartments for this study. Type Of Detector Type Of Alarm Total By Alarm Type Ionization Photoelectric Cooking 78 5 83 Malfunction 26 5 31 Heater 4 0 4 Cigarette 1 0 1 A/C Unit 3 0 3 Shower 3 0 3 Human Error 0 1 1 Totals: 115 11 126

  14. Nuisance Alarms 1005 University Ave., Palo Alto, CA September 17, 2010

  15. Hush Feature? • Where’s the data? • Is this feature effective? • “To silence a triggered smoke alarm,about 22% of consumers will remove the battery…” Source: 1997 Fire Awareness/Escape Planning Study for National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA, August 1997, Tables 3 & 4 • How do occupants know about the hush feature? • Poor or absent label. • Most owners manuals are unavailable shortly after installation. • Can the hush button be reached?

  16. Smoldering Fire Response • “We’ve been working through legislation to stop smoldering fires…” • Gene Gantt, Nov. 8, 2010 • One cannot stop smoldering fires by edict or legislation. • Smoldering fires cannot be eliminated without banning electricity and most consumer goods

  17. Smoldering Fire Response • Does anyone one die in a smoldering fire? • Study in Great Britain found majority of fire deaths occurred more than 20 minutes after start of fire. • Does anyone die in a flaming fire? • Yes…of smoke inhalation. • Flaming fires located distant from the smoke alarm and victim produce larger particle sizes.

  18. Dead or Removed Batteries • Occupants may view low battery warning as nuisance. • King County study suggests 5% or more of alarms may be disabled at end of battery life by failure to replace. • Oregon State Fire Marshal requires new smoke alarms sold in Oregon have 10 year battery.

  19. Service Life • NFPA recommends replacement at 10 years. • Health and Safety Code only requires “operable” smoke alarm. • Widely-used estimate 3% failure rate per year based on Ontario Housing Corporation study. (30% @10 years)

  20. Additional Smoke Alarms • NFPA recommends one on each floor level and one in each bedroom. • Health and Safety Code only requires one smoke alarm. • Data from NFPA to support this would be appreciated. • Interconnection has also been mentioned as a safety improvement

  21. Conclusion and Recommendations • State Fire Marshal should consider de-listing all smoke alarms which cannot be demonstrated to acceptably minimize nuisance activation. • Data collected in US and California is insufficient to identify smoke alarm deficiencies. Better data collection guidance for fire investigators is urgently needed. • State Fire Marshal should consider requiring 10 year batteries for new smoke alarms sold in California.

  22. Conclusion and Recommendations • State Fire Marshal should consider requiring replacement of alarms over 10 years old for rental housing and at transfer of title for owner-occupied dwellings. • State Fire Marshal should consider requiring additional smoke alarms in bedrooms for rental housing and at transfer of title for owner-occupied dwellings.

  23. Conclusion and Recommendations • State Fire Marshal should consider requiring interconnection of smoke alarms for rental housing and at transfer of title for owner-occupied dwellings. • We need better data! • More data points are needed. • Better training for investigators. • We need better Public Education!

  24. Parting Thoughts All of the materials presented here and this presentation will likely be posted on the internet if they aren’t already. If the State Fire Marshal continues to list nuisance- prone alarms, it sends the message that it’s up to local jurisdictions to protect their citizens. In the absence of SFM leadership, more cities and counties will adopt local requirements, and they will not be consistent. Palo Alto was not the first and still more followed and this will continue.

  25. Questions? Gordon Simpkinson 650-329-2347 Gordon.Simpkinson@cityofpaloalto.org

More Related