Smoke Alarms: A Local Fire Marshal Perspective

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 FMs 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 didnt 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/stat
  istics/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/stat
  istics/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/whit
  e-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/homeinsuran
  ce/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/Publi
  c20Education/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/smoke
  false.pdf, p. 4
• Frequent nuisance alarms can result in the
  occupant disabling the smoke alarm.
• Source NFPA 72-2010, Section A.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...
• Sourcehttp//www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Resea
  rch/FinalReportTaskGroupSmokeDetectionFollowUp.pdf
  , p. 128
• the occupant may 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.
• Sourcehttp//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
Photoelectric
Ionization
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?

• Wheres 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

• Weve 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?
• Yesof 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
  _at_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 arent already.
• If the State Fire Marshal continues to list
  nuisance- prone alarms, it sends the message that
  its 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_at_cityofpaloalto.org