Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-03 Council Packet - Work SessionKENAI CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 3, 2011 KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT I. Introduction - Rick Koch, Kenai City Manager II. Presentation - Mike Tilley, Kenai Fire Chief A. Video - Fresno Fire Department Public Service Announcement B. Presentation C. Video - Marble Mountain Fire Burn III. Presentation - Jeff Twait, President Kenai Peninsula Homebuilders Association IV. Presentation - Paul Michaelson, Anchorage Homebuilders V. Testimony /Discussion 20 09 International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Requirement R313.2 One- and two- family dwellings automatic fire systems. Effective January 1, 2011, . an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two- family dwellings. Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system. R313.2.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D. For owners doing their own work, AS08.18.161 (10) and AS 08.48.331(6)(a) allows owner /builders to do their own design and construction for single family dwellings. For owners not doing their own work, a licensed plumber may do the design and installation of the residential fire sprinkler system. Candace Roulo of Contractor Magazine wrote: "The IRC requires fire sprinklers because construction products used in today's home provide significantly less time to escape than older construction materials, according to Buddy Dewar, vice president of regional operations at NFSA. Underwriters Laboratory tests show buildings collapse in less than four minutes using engineered wood products and other lightweight construction material — products that save the homebuilder 40% of their labor costs — compared to 20 minutes using legacy construction materials." MYTHS ABOUT SPRINKLERS People say, "Sprinklers cause water damage." But in fact, tests by various fire departments and the U.S. Fire Administration have proven that sprinklered properties have far less damage from water than unsprinklered properties ... up to 85% less. People say, "Sprinklers are too expensive to install." But in fact, installation of sprinklers will reduce the cost of homeowners' insurance to a point where the system will be paid for in as little as five years. Add this savings to reduced building requirements and slower fire department growth, and the citizens' savings is ongoing. (Scottsdale Arizona) People say, "All sprinklers trip if one is activated by fire," But in fact 98% of all fires in homes are controlled with the activation of one sprinkler head. In most cotmnercial buildings, three heads control the fire. People say, "Sprinkler heads trip for no reason, causing unnecessary water damage." But in fact only one in 16,000,000 trip without being damaged by some means other than fire. Some people say, "Sprinkler heads look bad in the home." But in fact changes in sprinkler head design have resulted in sprinkler heads that are small with no more than 3/4" protruding from the finished wall. Some people say, "Sprinkler piping may cause water teaks in their home." But in fact, piping systems for sprinklers are tested at 200 pounds per square inch for two hours. This is approximately three to four times greater than the water pressure used in homes or for the sprinkler system under normal conditions, Some people say, "Smoke detectors will do the job, why sprinkler ?" But in fact, smoke detectors and sprinklers can reduce the loss of life by 98.5 %. An increase of 48.5% over smoke detectors alone. Some people say, "Why do I have to place sprinklers in my home; they might trip while i am on vacation?" But in fact, sprinklers trip at 155 degrees. This temperature can only be reached a home with a true fire, not by any other means. Some people say, "If I have a fire and I am not home, the water will do more damage than the fire." But in fact, the systems may have a local alarm hell on the outside of the building to alert people that the home has a water flow inside. The flow switch may also be monitored by an alarm company that would notify the fire department of the flow, (Not required by IRO) Some people say, "The sprinkler piping will be likely to freeze here in Alaska" But in fact, the Fire Sprinkler System piping is no more likely to freeze than any other water piping in the home. A -10 ResNentt a[ F rre Sprkoik by Steve Smith Posted: April 2, 2001 art Q &A Page, lof7 The notion of home fire sprinklers has been in the back of many minds for almost 30 years. Here's a rundown of common concerns about where we've been and vvhere we may be going. How dNi we get to tfroes p© nt? The first ordinance mandating sprinklers in new residential construction goes back to 1978 in San Clemente, Calif. But most industry watchers consider that the real starting point began in 1985 when the fast - growing community of Scottsdale, Ariz., mandated sprinklers for all new residential construction - and industrial and commercial construction, for that matter - by a vote of 6 to 1. (The law didn't take effect, however, until ]an. 1, 1986.) Basically, the idea was to allow a smaller, better trained crew of firefighters to do more with less. Sprinklers are a great way to achieve that. it was a given that automatic sprinklers were a great benefit in fighting fires in commercial structures. So why not apply sprinklers to homes? What's more, commercial sprinklers are more for property protection; residential sprinklers are a life safety matter. The National Fire Protection Association says that eight out of every 10 fire deaths in the United States occur in residential structures. Sprinklers do not necessarily reduce the number of calls for fires, but they do reduce the severity of the fire, thereby reducing danger to firefighters as well as the complexity of each incident. And because sprinklers could diminish the requirements of fire suppression, they also make it possible for the fire service to allocate more resources to emergency medical service and other rescue situations. Today, Scottsdale citizens pay 30 percent to 50 percent less for fire services than residents in surrounding communities. At the same time, the city's fire service is able to employ over 50 percent more fire prevention personnel than the regional average. in what other ways has the Scotttsda e Paw paod off? After 10 years, the local fire department issued a report that also helped sprinkler proponents prove their case even more. After reviewing a decade's worth of firefighting, the report concluded the following regarding residential fires: Not one single fire - related death occurred in any sprinklered property. In http:/ iwww. pmmag. com/ copyright /6621c940b9fc -0VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 2 of 7 addition, the fire department credited the ordinance with actually saving eight lives. The average fire loss for property per sprinklered fire was $1,689 vs. $9,571 for a non - sprinklered lire. The total sprinklered loss for property was just 530,401, while the potential loss was estimated at $5.4 million, Homeowners with sprinklered homes saved an average of 10 percent off homeowners insurance rates compared to owners of nonsprinklered homes.Meanwhile, many doom- and - Bloomers predicted that this new requirement would price many would -be homeowners out of the market. But that has not been the case. Its a good thing to keep in mind that the population of Scottsdale increased 54 percent in this 10 -year period. Other data confirms the Scottsdale experience. The National Fire Protection Association, for example, analyzed national data collected between 1983 and 1992, and concluded that the number of fire deaths per 1,000 fires was reduced by 57 percent in homes with sprinklers. What about orthnances Bag other pats of the country? As best we can estimate as many as 700 cities have some residential sprinkler laws of varying degrees on the books. The Residential Fire Safety Institute has a list of laws on its Web site (www.firesafehome.org). What u atioraaib standards are these Bocab orrdiinwtcces tasirrag for .spriinklerr desogrn and hntanat an NFPA 13D covers single - family homes. Other associated standards are NFPA 13, which governs sprinklers in nonresidential structures and residential buildings higher than four stories. NFPA 13R applies to multifamily residences, such as apartment buildings, up to four stories. Just what Bs the bfg fire- stoppAncg advantage of havh n 7esideuniai spa'Brak0e s? Basically, it controls the fire until the firefighters arrive, and gives occupants a chance of escaping harm in the meantime. Fire professionals talk a lot about "flashover." That's the point in which combustibles reach a temperature hot enough to burst into flames, no matter how far away you are from the initial fire source. In other words, you aren't safe just because you're in another part of the house. Fire gases, heat and smoke are pushed into the other rooms with a huge http:// wtivw. pmmag .com /copyright/6621c940b9fc70 /gnVCMV4100000f932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 3 of 7 wave of energy. Flashover greatly increases the fatality rate and requires more firefighters to control the blaze. Dalt aren't new (homes Itl'xinDt more saffthy than o der homes? p >Fire officials believe that fire safety is a bigger issue for new homes since they are well- insulated and keep the heat from fire from dissipating. As a result, you've got a faster, hotter fire that cuts escape time. Whether a home is "safe" or not because of its construction misses the point. Fires are caused by the homeowners, not the homes, Over 80 percent of residential fires result from careless smoking, cooking accidents and kids playing with matches. rent smoke caicetectors enough? Smoke detectors have had a great impact, but their downside is as their name implies. Detecting a fire is one thing, but a warning isn't always enough. They don't do anything to stop the fire as sprinklers do. What os the ©ioiposo on's case aagahmt rPesodernti H spllttkBers? Bottom line, any opposition centers on leaving no choice in the matter. That would be what you'd expect from builders, and the National Association of Horne Builders was certainly against the passage of the Scottsdale ordinance. Make it an option, they say, and leave it up to the homeowner to decide. To be fair, the NAHB has softened its stance in recent years even to the point where the full -scale model homes that are erected every year at the association's trade show are now outfitted with sprinklers. 3ust how march does til'S add to the coal of a home? According to the 10 -year Scottsdale study, the cost of installing residential sprinklers for a track home dropped from $1.14 per sq. ii to 0.59 cents per sq. ft. City officials say the mandatory requirement, established standards and increased competition have all had an effect on the price. As of 1996, a residential sprinkler system for a 2,000 sq. ft. Scottsdale home cost around $1,180 - that was less than 1 percent of the going rate for new home at the time. What's more, many area homes include upgrades to landscaping, carpeting, tile, windows and the like. Nearly all of these upgrades were more http : / /www.pmmag.comicopyrightI6621 c940b9fc fl V gnV CNf i 00000f932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21;2010 Page 4 of 7 expensive that the additional cost of residential sprinkler system, What about other eqa enf such as pumps? It depends. Most systems don't require a separate pump, although the one pump might need to be upsized. Builders are understandably reluctant to add to the cost of new construction. But many communities use "trade- offs" in other areas of its building codes in order to make the fire sprinklers more attractive. Some communities, for example, have reduced requirements for certain fire -rated building products. For entire subdivisions, variations in the amount of housing units, street width, turn - around radius in cul -de -sacs, and distance between fire hydrants, among other options, provide incentives for builders. S UBtp homeowners shouDdn`t be forced onto buyEng s ©rethMg they don't want, r ht? We suppose the last thing anybody in our industry would support is government mandates. We don't recall any PM readers readily embracing 1.6 -gpf water closets. However, homeowners have very little say in many zoning, code and building requirements that apply to home sweet home. If some communities can dictate to homeowners what color to paint their own house, why not at least talk about fire sprinklers? Our editorial background of suburban Chicago illustrates this with a couple of recent incidents. Clarendon Hills, III., made sprinklers mandatory in new residential construction a couple of years ago. For much of its life, Clarendon Hills was your basic suburb with your basic 2,000 sq. ft. suburban homes. Lately, however, many of the older homes have been bought just to be torn down by new homeowners who then erect veritable mansions in their places. The local fire district is particularly concerned about fighting fires in these new residences. Lately, many homeowners have been besieging city council meetings, and a vote on whether to change the sprinkler law was a possibility as we went to press with this issue. Meanwhile driving to work the other day, we heard about a homeowner getting a citation issued by the local police for having his Christmas decorations up in March. Can you guess which suburb? Clarendon Hills. http: / /www.pmmag.com/ copyright /6621 c940b9fc7grOVgnVCM100000f932a8c0u ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 5of7 What flout ©{pp ©sotuon of pBumbfing contractors do0wg trds work as opp sed tai spuink0e s contractors? The political rhetoric appears to have died down from where it was just a few years ago. The American Fire Sprinkler Association's position is that as long as plumbers have the proper training, they can install residential sprinklers. While it varies all over the map, its interesting to see what Wisconsin has done about training from a licensing standpoint. Currently, licensed plumbing contractors who complete 16 hours of training have a "tag" put on their license that allows them to do residential sprinkler installations. What's rnore, the state had mandated that all apprenticeship training will include residential sprinkler training. In other words, there will be a natural groundswell of qualified plumbing contractor /residential sprinkler contractors entering the Wisconsin marketplace. It's no doubt a great market for plumbers just for the simple fact that they're there already doing the domestic plumbing and heating for new construction. Residential work isn't the size of work that's going to turn the heads of commercial sprinkler contractors. How about new coa nNnadon systems? Now there's an interesting question. Combination systems, or multipurpose systems, make a lot of sense from a cost standpoint since the sprinkler system shares its piping with the home's plumbing system. A recent change NFPA 13D allows multipurpose systems to be plumbed with 1/2 -inch pipe. Prior to that, the pipe had to be a minimum of 3/4 -inch. While other types of piping are possible with such a system, Wirsbo is the only manufacturer that uses PEX for its piping material. A dedicated manifold feeds 1/2 -inch PEX directly to a special fitting equipped with four outlets. This fitting is attached to the sprinkler head. The remaining three ports on the fitting are then used to feed other sprinklers or plumbing fixtures. The result is an interconnected grid of plumbing fixtures and sprinklers. Some estimates (and not just Wirsbo's, but various firefighting associations') say multipurpose systems could cost half as much to install as separate systems for plumbing and fire protection. Wirsbo is currently marketing its AquasafeT system in 10 states. To ensure proper installation, plumbing contractors using the system have also agreed to attend training classes, follow set design procedures and undertake other aspects of marketing. What makes this an interesting question is because trade groups that have diminished their opposition to letting plumbing contractors install residential sprinklers, aren't strongly in favor of multipurpose systems. Essentially, most http : / /www.pmmag.com/ copyright/ 6621c940b9fc70 70VgnVCM100000f9932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 6 of 7 sprinkler organizations are concerned that NFPA 13D, which does allow for multipurpose systems, doesn't offer much guidance in installing such systems. Wirsbo, for its part, says many of these objections are treated by its the alliance agreement signed by its customers. AOR rroghto but aren't these &urrn s lust p lfl' u ki to have Or' your home? Residential sprinklers are smaller than their commercial cousins. They're also hidden away by a plate. The plate comes in standard colors, but for a price, manufacturers can customize the color. The National Fire Sprinkler Coalition, a public relations organization founded five years ago by the AFSA, the NFPA and the National Fire Sprinkler Association, has been addressing common public misunderstandings. Will sprinklers leak? Sprinklers and their associated piping are pressure tested two to three times higher than a home's plumbing system. Don't all the sprinklers go off at the same tirne? Only in Hollywood. Heat from a fire triggers the sprinkler. its water cools the hot fire gas so in nearly all cases there is not enough heat to open the next nearest sprinkler. According to the NFPA, 85 percent of residential fires are controlled by one or two sprinklers. Won't the water create more damage than a fire? A residential sprinkler sprays about 10 -18 gallons of water per minute and operates early. Meanwhile, just one hose used by firefighters flows at 10 times that amount, about 175 -200 gallons per minute. Which would you rather have? How Gong do sprhikOers Oast? All sprinkler components must meet United Laboratories standards, which tests them for a 50 -year usable life with an engineering factor of two. That's a fancy way of saying that the components have a useful life of at least 100 years. So after an t is, what's the market Ooioiz Oifoe today? Residential sprinklers are probably found in fewer than 2 percent of all one- and two - family homes. For multifamily units, its probably less than 10 percent. Most of the business up to now has been driven by local laws, and several fire chiefs who we spoke with believe the tipping point will come when fire protection is adopted by national building codes. At the same time, consumer awareness is growing. In some ways, sprinklers remind us of radiant heat (although it's certainly a much more expensive proposition). It's not necessarily a common option, and as a result, few http: //www.pmrnag.com/ copyright /662Ic940b9fc7 §OVgnVCM100000f932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 7 of 7 Homeowners know they have other means to heat their homes. But when they do hear about it, they ask for it - and if they can afford it, they definitely want it. Builders, however, aren't in love with anything that gums up the assembly line process of homebuilding so tiey actively discourage it. Meanwhile, one brave contractor can turn on enough people to beat back anybody else's objections and, we hope, build a profitable niche business, Steve Smith Steve Smith was editor of Plumbing & Mechanical from 1996 -2009. http: / /www.pmmag.com/ copyright/ 6621c940b9fe7t $6VgnVCM100000f932a8e0_ ?vi... 10/21/2010 Celebrating The Past Embracing The Future Sel °vz Communities Together Home fire sprinklers save lives and protect property...the lives and property that you value most. Consider these, facis.; • Every 74 seconds fire occurs in a U.S. residence. • Every 21 minutes a civilian is injured by fire. • Eight out of ten fire deaths occur in the home. • Young children, older adults, and physically and mentally challenged people face the highest risk of injury or death in residential fires. • Too often, people fail to respond appropriately to the sound ofa smoke detector, because they assume 11 is a false alarm. Rather than exiting the building, they search to confirm the existence ofa fire, wasting the few precious minutes they may have to escape. • Studies show a lot of children and elderly do not wake up to the sound of smoke detectors. MYTH: The water damage from sprinklers is worse titan a fire. The truth is, a sprinkler will control a fire with a tiny fraction of the water used by fire department hoses, because a sprinkler activates during the early stages ofa fire before a fire department can arrive. Automatic systems spray water only in the immediate area of the fire, usually with just one sprinkler operating. As a result, the fire is kept from spreading, and widespread water damage is avoided. KR p i later, . Each ,spritrl protects an area belarnl, and when heated by ire, activates Howe Fire Sprinkl REMINDER: COUNCIL WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011 KENAI CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. TOPIC: 2009 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT *A LIGHT MEAL WILL BE PROVIDED. 2009 International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Requirement R313.2 One- and two- family dwellings automatic fire systems. Effective January 1, 2011, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two- family dwellings, Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall not be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are not already provided with an automatic residential sprinkler system. R313.2.1 Design and installation. Automatic residential fire sprinkler systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with Section P2904 or NFPA 13D. For owners doing their own work, AS08.18.161 (10) and AS 08.48.331(6)(a) allows owner /builders to do their own design and construction for single family dwellings. For owners not doing their own work, a licensed plumber may do the design and installation of the residential fire sprinkler system. Candace Roulo of Contractor Magazine wrote: "The IRC requires fire sprinklers because construction products used in today's home provide significantly less time to escape than older construction materials, according to Buddy Dewar, vice president of regional operations at NFSA. Underwriters Laboratory tests show buildings collapse in less than four minutes using engineered wood products and other lightweight construction material — products that save the homebuilder 40% of their labor costs — compared to 20 minutes using legacy construction materials." MYTHS ABOUT SPRINKLERS People say, "Sprinklers cause water damage." But in fact, tests by various fire depaa tauents and the U.S. Fire Administration have proven that sprinklered properties have far less damage from water than unsprinklered properties ... up to 85% less. People say, "Sprinklers are too expensive to install." But in fact installation of sprinklers will reduce the cost of homeowners' insurance to a point where the system will be paid for in as little as five years. Add this savings to reduced building requirements and slower fire department growth, and the citizens' savings is ongoing. (Scottsdale Arizona) People say, "All sprinklers trip if one is activated by fire," But in fact, 98% of all tires in homes are controlled with the activation of one sprinkler head. In most commercial buildings, three heads control the fire. People say, "Sprinkler heads trip for no reason, causing unnecessary water damage." But in fact only one in 16,000,000 trip without being damaged by some means other than fire. Some people say, "Sprinkler heads look bad in the home." But in fact. changes in sprinkler head design have resulted in sprinkler heads that are small with no more than 3/4" protruding from the finished wall. Some people say, "Sprinkler piping may cause water Leaks in their home." But in fact piping systems for sprinklers are tested at 200 pounds per square inch for two hours. This is approximately three to four times greater than the water pressure used in homes or for the sprinkler system under normal conditions. Some people say, "Smoke detectors will do the job, why sprinkler ?" But in fact, smoke detectors and sprinklers can reduce the loss of life by 98.5 %. An increase of 48.5% over smoke detectors alone. Some people say, "Why do I have to place sprinklers in my home, they might trip while I am on vacation ?" But in fact, sprinklers trip at 155 degrees. This temperature can only be reached in a home with a true fire, not by any other means. Some people say, "If I have a fire and I am not home, the water will do more damage than the fire." But in fact, the systems may have a local alarm bell on the outside of the building to alert people that the home has a water flow inside. The flow switch may also be monitored by an alarm company that would notify the fire department of the flow. (Not required by IRC) Some people say, "The sprinkler piping will be likely to freeze here in Alaska" But in fact, the Fire Sprinkler System piping is no more likely to freeze than any other water piping in the home. A -10 s d nU a & Ears by Steve Smith Posted: April 2, 2001 Pagel of 7 The notion of home fire sprinklers has been in the back of many minds for almost 30 years. Here's a rundown of common concerns about where we've been and vvhere we may be going. How d°ad we get to tHs pooh? The first ordinance mandating sprinklers in new residential construction goes back to 1978 in San Clemente, Calif. But most industry watchers consider that the real starting point began in 1985 when the fast- grdvving community of Scottsdale, Ariz., mandated sprinklers for all new residential construction - and industrial and commercial construction, for that matter - by a vote of 6 to 1. (The law didn't take effect, however, until Jan. 1, 1986.) Basically, the idea was to allow a smaller, better trained crew of firefighters to do more with less. Sprinklers are a great way to achieve that. it was a given that automatic sprinklers were a great benefit in fighting fires in commercial structures. So why not apply sprinklers to homes? What's more, commercial sprinklers are more for property protection; residential sprinklers are a life safety matter, The National Fire Protection Association says that eight out of every 10 fire deaths in the United States occur in residential structures. Sprinklers do not necessarily reduce the number of calls for fires, but they do reduce the severity of the fire, thereby reducing danger to firefighters a° reducing danger as well as the complexity of each incident, And because sprinklers could diminish the requirements of fire suppression, they also make it possible for the fire service to allocate more resources to emergency medical service and other rescue situations, Today, Scottsdale citizens pay 30 percent to 50 percent less for fire services than residents in surrounding communities. At the same time, the city's fire service is able to employ over 50 percent more fire prevention personnel than the regional average. En what other ways has the Scottscla�e Eaw paod off? After 10 years, the local fire department issued a report teat also helped sprinkler proponents prove their case even more. After reviewing a decade's worth of firefighting, the report concluded the following regarding residential fires: Not one single fire - related death occurred in any sprinklered property. in http: / /www.pmmag.com/ copyright /6621c940b9foi- 21-0VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21 /2010 Page 2of7 addition, the fire department credited the ordinance with actually saving eight lives. The average fire loss for property per sprinklered fire was $1,689 vs. $9,571 for a non - sprinklered fire. The total sprinklered loss for property was just $30,401, while the potential loss was estimated at $5.4 million. Homeowners with sprinklered homes saved an average of 10 percent off homeowners insurance rates compared to owners of nonsprinklered homes.Nleanwhile, many doom - and - gloomers predicted that this new requirement would price many would -be homeowners out of the market. But that has not been the case. Its a good thing to keep in mind that the population of Scottsdale increased 54 percent in this 10 -year period. Other data confirms the Scottsdale experience. The National Fire Protection Association, for example, analyzed national data collected betvveen 1983 and 1992, and concluded that the number of fire deaths per 1,000 fires was reduced by 57 percent in homes with sprinklers. What about ordinances fin other parts of the country? As best we can estimate as many as 700 cities have some residential sprinkler laws of varying degrees on the books. The Residential Fire Safety Institute has a list of laws on its Web site (vvww.firesafehome.org). What rna rrna0 standards are Masse Iloccall ordinances usorucg for sprinkler dlesfigri and htstaNation? NFPA 13D covers single - family homes. Other associated standards are NFPA 13, which governs sprinklers in nonresidential structures and residential buildings higher than four stories. NFPA 13R applies to multifamily residences, such as apartment buildings, up to four stories. Just what is the fbng fire-stopping advantage off fhavhl)g residential spriniders'F Basically, it controls the fire until the firefighters arrive, and gives occupants a chance of escaping harm in the meantime. Fire professionals talk a lot about "flashover." That's the point in which combustibles reach a temperature hot enough to burst into flames, no matter how far away you are from the initial Fire source. In other words, you aren't safe just because you're in another part of the house. Fire gases, heat and smoke are pushed into the other rooms with a huge http: / /w•ww.pmmag.com/ copyright /6621 c940b9fc70t gnVCN1100000f932a8c0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 3 of 7 wave of energy. Flashover greatly increases the fatality rate and requires more firefighters to control the blaze. Ent aven °t new Gnomes boot more saJCev them °Wier homes? p >Fire officials believe that fire safety is a bigger issue for new homes since they are well- insulated and keep the heat from fire from dissipating. As a result, you've got a faster, hotter fire that cuts escape time. its the 'Whether a home is "safe" or not because or r�> construction misses me pair;t, s-sr es are caused by the homeowners, not the homes. ver 80 percent of residential fires result from careless smoking, cooking ac kids i with - accident artd kids � playing _�r= matches. Aren't Sh oke sfi tC'dctorrs e.nou©Jh? Smoke detectors have had a great impact, but their downside is as their name implies. Detecting a fire is one thing, but a warning isn't always enough. They don't do anything to stop the fire as sprinklers do. What ors the ©pposotlion °s case ogailnst reskilentoM sproo9G 0errsa Bottom line, any opposition centers on leaving no choice in the matter. That would be what you'd expect from builders, and the National Association of Horne Builders was certainly against the passage of the Scottsdale ordinance. Make it an option, they say, and leave it up to the homeowner to decide. To be fair, the NAHB has softened its stance in recent years even to the point where the full -scale model homes that are erected every year at the association's trade show are now outfitted with sprinklers. Aust how much does Mils add to The cost cf a, re? According to the 10 -year Scottsdale study, the cost of installing residential sprinklers for a track home dropped from $1.14 per sq. if to 0.59 cents per sq. ft. City officials say the mandatory requirement, established standards and increased competition have all had an effect on the price. As or 1996, a residential sprinkler system for a 2,000 sq. ft. Scottscale home cost around $1,180 - that was less than 1 percent of the going rate for new home at the time. What's more, many area homes include upgrades to landscaping, carpeting, tile, windows and the like. Nearly all of these upgrades were more http:1iww w.pmmag.eom/ copyright/ 6621c940b9fci {5.0VgnVCM100000I 32a 8c0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 4 of 7 expensive that the additional cost of residential sprinkler system. What about other egaoopmerot such as pumps? It depends. Most systems don't require a separate pump, although the one pump might need to be upsized. Builders are understandably reluctant to add to the cost of new construction. But many communities use "trade- offs" in other areas of its building codes in order to make the fire sprinklers more attractive. Some communities, for example, have reduced requirements for certain fire -rated building products. For entire subdivisions, variations in the amount of housing units, street width, turn - around radius in cul -de -sacs, and distance between fire hydrants, among other options, provide incentives for builders. StEH, home want, rojht? errs shrnddoi`t be forced En Ibuyorag s©oetlhaatc, they don't We suppose the last thing anybody in our industry would support is government mandates. We don't recall any PM readers readily embracing 1.6 -gpf water closets. However, homeowners have very little say in many zoning, code and building requirements that apply to home sweet home. If some communities can dictate to homeowners what color to paint their own house, why not at least talk about fire sprinklers? Our editorial background of suburban Chicago illustrates this with a couple of recent incidents. Clarendon Hills, III., made sprinklers mandatory in new residential construction a couple of years ago. For much of its life, Clarendon Hills was your basic suburb with your basic 2,000 sq. ft. suburban homes. Lately, however, many of the older homes have been bought just to be torn down by new homeowners who then erect veritable mansions in their places. The local fire district is particularly concerned about fighting fires in these new residences, Lately, many homeowners have been besieging city council meetings, and a vote on whether to change the sprinkler law was a possibility as we went to press with this issue. Meanwhile driving to work the other day, we heard about a homeowner getting a citation issued by the local police for having his Christmas decorations up in March. Can you guess which suburb? Clarendon Hills. http: /www.pmmag. corn / copyright /6621 c940b9fc7PUV gnV CIvI100000f932a8c0___ ?vi... 10/2 U2010 Page 5 of 7 What about opp ©s6t5on of phombhtg contractors d©orng tips work a� opposced to spaink0ers contractors? The political rhetoric appears to have died down from where it was just a few years ago. The American Fire Sprinkler Association's position is that as long as plumbers have the proper training, they can install residential sprinklers. While it varies all over the map, it's interesting to see what Wisconsin has done about training from a licensing standpoint. Currently, licensed plumbing contractors who complete 16 hours of training have a "tag" put on their license that allows them to do residential sprinkler installations. What's more, the state had mandated that all apprenticeship training will include residential sprinkler training. In other words, there will be a natural groundswell of qualified plumbing contractor /residential sprinkler contractors entering the Wisconsin marketplace. It's no doubt a great market for plumbers just for the simple fact that they're there already doing the domestic plumbing and heating for new construction. Residential work isn't the size of work that's going to turn the heads of commercial sprinkler contractors. How about new ccombpciatc o systems? Now there's an interesting question. Combination systems, or multipurpose systems, make a lot of sense from a cost standpoint since the sprinkler system shares its piping with the home's plumbing system. A recent change NFPA 13D allows multipurpose systems to be plumbed with 1/2 -inch pipe. Prior to that, the pipe had to be a minimum of 3/4 -inch. While other types of piping are possible with such a system, Wirsbo is the only manufacturer that uses PEX for its piping material. A dedicated manifold feeds 1/2 -inch PEX directly to a special fitting equipped with four outlets. This fitting is attached to the sprinkler head. The remaining three ports on the fitting are then used to feed other sprinklers or plumbing fixtures. The result is an interconnected grid of plumbing fixtures and sprinklers. Some estimates (and not just Wirsbo's, but various firefighting associations') say multipurpose systems could cost half as much to install as separate systems for plumbing and fire protection. Wirsbo is currently marketing its AquasafeT system in 10 states. To ensure proper installation, plumbing contractors using the system have also agreed to attend training classes, follow set design procedures and undertake other aspects of marketing. What makes this an interesting question is because trade groups that have diminished their opposition to letting plumbing contractors install residential sprinklers, aren't strongly in favor of multipurpose systems. Essentially, most http: / /www.pmmag.comlcopyright/ 6621 c940b9fc70 ?0VgnVCM100000f932a8c0 ?vi. 10/21/2010 Page 6 of 7 sprinkler organizations are concerned that NFPA 13D, which does allow for multipurpose systems, doesn't offer much guidance in installing such systems. Wirsbo, for its part, says many of these objections are treated by its the alliance agreement signed by its customers. O0 right, hut aren't these tf hilts lust pG&n angle to have on your home? Residential sprinklers are smaller than their commercial cousins. They're also hidden away by a plate. The plate comes in standard colors, but for a price, manufacturers can customize the color. The National Fire Sprinkler Coalition, a public relations organization founded five years ago by the AFSA, the NFPA and the National Fire Sprinkler Association, has been addressing common public misunderstandings. Will sprinklers leak? Sprinklers and their associated piping are pressure tested two to three times higher than a home's plumbing system. Don't all the sprinklers go off at the same time? Only in Hollywood. Heat from a fire triggers the sprinkler. Its water cools the hot fire gas so in nearly all cases there is not enough heat to open the next nearest sprinkler. According to the NFPA, 85 percent of residential fires are controlled by one or two sprinklers. Won't the water create more damage than a fire? A residential sprinkler sprays about 10 -18 gallons of water per minute and operates early. Meanwhile, just one hose used by firefighters flows at 10 times that amount, about 175 -200 gallons per minute. Which would you rather have? Mow long do srrla kOers tast? All sprinkler components must meet United Laboratories standards, which tests them for a 50 -year usable life with an engineering factor of two. That's a fancy way of saying that the components have a useful life of at least 100 years. So after an thtso what's the market to ok tike today/? Residential sprinklers are probably found in fewer than 2 percent of all one- and two- family homes. For multifamily units, its probably less than 10 percent. Most of the business up to now has been driven by local laws, and several fire chiefs who we spoke with believe the tipping point will come when fire protection is adopted by national building codes. At the same time, consumer awareness is growing. in some ways, sprinklers remind us of radiant heat (although it's certainly a much more expensive proposition). It's not necessarily a common option, and as a result, few http: / /www.pmmag.com/ copyright/ 6621c940b9fc71 1Y0 /gnVCM100000D32aoc0 ?vi... 10/21/2010 Page 7 of 7 homeowners know they have other means to heat their homes. But when they do hear about it, they ask for it - and if they can afford it, they definitely want it. Builders, however, aren't in love with anything that gums up the assembly line process of homebuilding so they actively discourage it. Meanwhile, one brave contractor can turn on enough people to beat back anybody else's objections and, we hope, build a profitable niche business, Steve Smith Steve Smith was editor of Plumbing & Mechanical from 1996 -2009. http: / /www.pmmag.com/copyright /6621 c940b9fc7f1 &6VgnVCM100000f932a8c0__ ?vi... 10121/2010 Celebrating The Past Embracing The Future Serving Communities Mg-ether home fire sprinklers save lives and protect property...the Iives and property that you value most. Co de these, fuels: • Every 74 seconds tire occurs in a U.S. residence. • Every 21 minutes a civilian is injured by fire. • Eight out of ten fire deaths occur in the home. • Young children, older adults, and physically and mentally challenged people face the highest risk of injury or death in residential fires. • Too often, people fail to respond appropriately to the sound of a smoke detector, because they assume it is a false alarm. Rather than exiting the building, they search to confirm the existence of a fire, wasting the few precious minutes they may have to escape. • Studies show a lot of children and elderly do not wake up to the sound of stroke detectors. MYTH: The rvater damage from sprinklers is worse than a fire. The truth is, a sprinkler will control a fire with a tiny fraction of the water used by fire department hoses, because a sprinkler activates during the early stages of a fire before a fire department can arrive. Automatic systems spray water only in the immediate area of the fire, usually with just one sprinkler operating. As a result, the fire is kept from spreading, and widespread water damage is avoided. Each sprinkler protects an area below, and when heated by fire, activates_ Home fire Sprinklers: Smart Choice lt's clear that home fire sprinklers are a smart choice. That's why they are growing in popularity across the country. This automatic fire protection system works best in combination with properly installed and maintained smoke detectors. Sprinklers and detectors together cut your risk of dying in a home fire by 82% relative to not having either. That's a saving of thousands of lives a year. The most convenient and least costly time to install home fire sprinklers is during new home construction. The expense is often only I% of the total building cost...about what you'd pay for an upgrade in carpeting. Sprinklers can also be retrofitted into existing homes. You make choices to invest in attractive furnishings, security systems and other features for your home. A home fire sprinkler system is also an investment: in the safety of your family and most cherished belongings. What are the benefits? Aside from the obvious property and life saving benefits, ,many insurance companies offer discounts to homeowners that have homes with fire sprinkler systems installed. The discount recommended by the insurance Services Offices in most states is 13% for a 13D system, and an additional 2% if smoke detectors are also provided. This discount is from the total homeowners premium, not just the fire portion. Although no specific data is available, a fire sprinkler system should also increase the resale value of your home. At the very least it will be an added benefit to the prospective buyer. Why are sprinklers so effective? The key to keeping a fire from reaching potentially dangerous and life- threatening proportions is early detection. Fire sprinklers operate automatically over the fire origin, even if you're not home, releasing water directly over the source of heat while simultaneously sounding an alarm. fire sprinklers keep fires small. In most case, fires are controlled with one or two sprinklers. the City of Kenai, because f our deferrnent from the State of Alaska, all newly built one and two family dwellings have been required to rrreet code standards dating pack to the 1960's Plans reviewed Inspections S ire an t anged? 2009 International Residential code: In 2006 the inclusion of residential sprinklers was part of the appendix of the Residential Code and was considered a recommendation. It has now been brought into the body of the code and if adopted will require fire sprinkler systems in all newly constructed homes. Candace Roulo of Contractor Magazine: "The IRC requires sprinklers because construction products used in today's home provides significantly less time to escape than older construction materials, according to Buddy Dewar, vice president of regional operations at NFSA. Underwriters Laboratory tests show buildings collapse in less than four minutes using engineered wood products and other light weight construction materials -- products that save the builder as much as 40% in construction costs -- compared to 20 minutes using legacy construction materials." hat will this effect? This Residential Building Code will only be adopted by communities that have a deferment from the State of Alaska for inspection, investigation and plan review powers. This Building code will not effect rural Alaska or anyone not living within a deferred jurisdiction. Question: Should the Ci of Kenai Adopt the 2009 International Residential code with the inclusion of Residential sprinklers? ock history of Sprinkler syste The United Fire Administration contracted the National Fire Protection Agency to create the first residential fire sprinkler installation standard in 1973, as part of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control's report "America Burning ". The first edition of NFPA 13D "Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One and Two Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes" was adopted in 1975. °story of Sprinki r systems There are two often cited examples with a 15 year history available since they mandated the installation of home sprinklers: Scottsdale Arizona Adopted 1986 184 sq miles Population 237,844 Prince George County Maryland Adopted 1992 485 sq miles Population 834,560 A 15 -year study Less fire damage in sprinklered homes Average fire Toss per single family sprinklered fire incident: $2,166 (15 yrs, 49 fires) Average fire loss per unsprinklered residential incident: $45,019 (1998 -2001 86 fires) Prince George's County, Maryland' i5YeartHiStOfy (1992-2,0°7) r Nori lered ® Sprinkiered Figure z: Average Fire Loss Bar Chart No. 1 r. Horne Fire Sprinkler Coalition. 2010. http : / /www.homefiresprinkler.org/ Acrv;zi vieik 4941iy,4 t talataAfice' „' hc, *Pr ..°4436 re facts and genera informatio Fires in residences have taken a high toll of life and property. In 2009 there were: 377,000 residential fires 2,590 civilian fire deaths 13,050 civilian fire injuries $7.8 billion in property damage Source: National Fire Protection Association Fire Loss in the US. 2009. e facts and general prifornr at Studies by the Federal Emergency Management Agency's United States Fire Administration indicate that the installation of residential fire sprinkler systems could have saved thousands of lives; prevented a large portion of those injuries; and eliminated hundreds of millions of dollars in property losses. 1400 1200 1000 TempBoo boo RESIDENTIAL FIRE TEST FREE BUR 3" Below Ceiling 6o" Above Floor 36" Above Floor 0 6o 120 180 240 300 Time in Seconds 360 420 RESIDENTIAL FIRE TEST FREE BUR PRINKLERS 3" Below Ceiling 6o" Above Floor 36" Above Floor 0 6o 120 Time in Seconds i8o 240 4000 3000 PPM 2000 1000 0 RESIDENTIAL FIRE TEST FREE BURN Vv'i' SPRINKLERS Carbon Monoxide 0 6o 120 180 240 300 Time in Seconds 360 420 w -RESIDENTIAL FIRE TEST FREE -BU 4000 3000 PPM 2000 1000 0 Carbon Monoxide 6o 120 Time in Seconds 18o of smoke afanns didn tend'. in harries titia had flies° FIRE .GROWTH IINRESTR.ICTED SMOKE RESIDENTIAL F. STANDARD r FIREER,HTERSOPEN Al ;P'1 SPRINKLER f SPRINKLER /' HOSENORIE.S ACT RA 1' ACTIVATES J ACTIVATES // ' W' I FIRE GRG%'TH RESTRICTED FIRE GROWTH F4ESTRUCTED DETECTION OF TON DNP.AI H 'ESPONSETOFOIE I-W r6!IFF MEOW wAGEARIE BY FIIIE DEPARTMENT 1 1 7 8' 9 JO T1MF On minutes) Ile won nollionar OK so what °s the cost RE: Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems Subject: Approximate Cost Per Square Foot Dear Eric, As discussed we were estimating the cost of a residential sprinkler system to be approximately $2.00 a square foot for the home itself. You would than need to figure the cost of the riser assembly, whether it was being fed from the public water supply versus a pump and tank for homes not connected to city water. Well pumps can be increased to handle the flow and pressure requirements of the sprinkler system if designed at the initial well design. ost of installing residential fire sprinklers averages $1.61 per square foot New Fire Protection Research Foundation report assesses costs September 11, 2008 — A national perspective on the cost of installing residential fire sprinklers is examined in a new report (PDF, 634 KB), released today by the an affiliate of the National Fire Protection Association. According to the report, the cost of installing sprinkler systems to the home builder averaged $1.61 per sprinklered square foot. Sprinklered square feet is the total area of spaces with sprinklers The cost of sprinkler systems to the home builder, in dollars per sprinklered square foot, ranged from $0.38 to $3.66. This cost includes all costs to the builder associated with the system including design, installation, and other costs such as permits, additional equipment, increased tap and water meter fees — to the extent that they apply. ,N13 1 it? ra / <r X/o44 Update as of January 25`"„ 2011 The information provided is a stare -by -state status of tiie 2009 IRC adoption and legislation activities as reported by HBA's. NAHB staff monitors ands updates the status of the information presented below periodically, and does its best to verify the accuracy of the information provided, Any incorrect or misinformation should be brought to the attention of Steven Orlowski at sorlowskir)nahb.org,. ,tea 3* HI -No t'IOn Reported :- Pending Action h ! a5 ivtandatory Requirements Defeated andate Approved AL/ AK/ AZ/ CAA / CO CT/ DE/ DC/ FL/ GA/ HI/ Ill / IL/ IN! IA/ KS/ KY/ LA/ ME' MD/ MA/ Ml/ MN/ MS/ MW MT/ NE/ NV/ NH/ NJ/ NM/ NY/ / NQ /OH /OK /OR /PA /RI /SC /SD /TN /TX /UT / VT/ VA/ WA/ WY' WI/ WY State St tats Current Action Alabama No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion of a nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one - and two- family dwellings Alaska Pending Action Introduced Legislation in 2010 to prohibit any jurisdiction from lawfully requiring Sprinklers in one - and two- family dwellings. Arizona No IJdandaHe- Moratorium on Code Adoption House Bill 2008 freezes municipal impact fees, residential or commercial building code changes, and construction contracting tax increases for two years, effective June 29, 2009. Arkansas No i/1andate- Regulatory Action Effective October I°', 2009 the Arkansas State Police signed a rule that fire sprinklers in new one (1) and two (t) family Arkansas dwellings would not be a state- mandated requirement now (nor in the net edition of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Rules, likely to be the 20/2 Edition). California Mandated - 2009 [RC Adopted Adopted the 2009 International Residential Code Adopted without amending the requirement for residential sprinkler. Currently One- and Two- Family Dwellings are not required to have sprinlders installed until the Effective date of January 1, 2011. Colorado No Action Reported Connecticut Pending Amendment The State Code and Standards Committee Review Board has recommended the deletion of the sprinkler requirements from the 2009 International Residential Code. Delaware No Action Reported District of Columbia No Action Reported Florida No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will exempt the state to adopt any portion of a nationally recognized code that will mandate residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings and other similar residential occupancies. Georgia No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will exempt the state to adopt any portion of a nationally recognized code that will mandate residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings and other similar residential occupancies. Hawaii No Action Reported Idaho No Mandate- Legislation Passed No Action Reported Passed Legislation that will exempt the state to adopt any portion of a nationally recognized code that will mandate residential sprinklers in one- and two - family dwellings and other similar residential occupancies. Illinois Indiana Pending Amendment The Indiana residential code review committee is still reviewing the 2009 International Residential Code, but deleted the requirement for fire sprinklers in R313 and amended P2904 to provide direction on the design and installation of the systems when installed. Iowa No Mandate- State Building Code Only SJR 2009 passed in both the House (91 -2) and Senate (49 -0) in March 2010. This joint resolution nullifies portions of an administrative rule adopted by the Iowa Department of Public Safety requiring the installation of automatic residential fie sprinkler systems in townhouse and one & two family dwellings where the State Building Code applies. * *Home Rule remains in effect for all city and county jurisdictions allowing them to adopt a residential fire sprinkler mandate. Kansas No Mandate- Legislation Passed 1413 2472 also relates to several local government issues. The bill temporarily prohibits a municipality from requiring the installation of a multipurpose sprinkler system in a residential structure. This prohibition provision would terminate on July 1, 2011. Kentucky No Action Reported Louisiana No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion of a nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one- and two - family dwellings. Maine No Mandate- Code Amended Uniform Building and Energy Code Board voted to exclude residential sprinklers for one- and two- family dwellings from the adoption of the 2009 IRC. Maryland Mandated- 2009 IRC Adopted Moving Forward with the adoption of the 2009 [RC without amending residential tire sprinklers. Currently One- and Two - Family Dwellings are not required to have sprinklers installed until he Effective date of January 1, 2011. Local jurisdictions still have the ability to amend state code. Massachusetts Pending Amendment The State Building Code Review Board approved an amendment to strike the mandatory sprinkler requirements for one - and two - family dwellings and townhouses, under specified square footages. There will be a series of public hearings to allow for public comment on these amendments towards the end of this year. Michigan No Mandate - Regulatory Action The Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth made the decision to remove mandatory sprinklers from the code based. Minnesota No Mandate - Regulatory Action The Minnesota Department of Labor and industry issued a regulatory letter indicating that the state would not be adopting the 2009 International Codes in an effort to reduce the budget. Mississippi No Action Reported Missouri No Mandate- Legislation Passed State Legislation was passed that would not require residential sprinklers in new home, but would require the home builder provide the potential homebuyer the option. Montana No Action Reported Nebraska Pending Legislation Introduced Legislation in 2010 to prohibit any jurisdiction from lawfully requiring Sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings.LB949 Nevada No Mandate- Regulatory Action North Las Vegas City Council has elected not to adopt the sprinkler provisions as found in the 2009 International Residential Code. New Hampshire No Mandate- Legislation Passed State Legislation was passed that would not require residential sprinklers in new home, reversing the decision made by the New Hampshire State Building Code Review Board which voted to adopt the 2009 IRC without amending the sprinkler provision. On August 4650, 10 the Department of Community Affairs had officially rescinded the requirement for mandating sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings. The issue will be revisited with the p„ is g of the 70 2 lnrernati l a d_ntial Codo b hLno .. the - -- enn. e i_ New Jersey No Mandate- Regulatory Action New Mexico Pending Amendment The Construction Industries Division has proposed an amendment that would delete the text of section R313.1 and would postpone the determination on the requirement for an automatic residential fire sprinkler system in townhouses and one- and two- family dwellings until July I, 2013. New York No Action Reported North Carolina No Mandate- Code Amended Building Code Council has Completed the Rules process for the 2012 NC Codes. The Council rejected an effort to require residential sprinklers in single- family homes as called for in the 2009 international Residential Code (IRC). North Dakota No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion of a nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one- and two - family dwellings. Ohio Pending Amendment There is discussion that the State Building Code Review Board will be discussing the potential deletion of the sprinkler requirements. Oklahoma No Action Reported Oregon No Action Reported Pennsylvania Pending Further Action Moving Forward with the adoption of the 2009 IRC without amending residential fire sprinklers. State RBA is still pursuing other options available to delay the implementation Rhode Island No Mandate- THE RHODE ISLAND BUILDERS ASSOCIATION SUPPORTS PASSAGE OF SBC -2, which removes the mandatory requirement Code Amended for sprinklers in 1 and 2 family homes and provide for their installation at the request of the buyer. South Carolina No Mandate - Legislation Passed Introduced Legislation in 2010 to prohibit any jurisdiction from lawfully requiring Sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings. Bill signed by the Governor would postpone any enforcement of the mandate until January of 2014. South Dakota No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion ofa nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings. Tennessee No Mandate- Legislation Passed Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion ofa nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion ofa nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings Texas No Mandate- Legislation Passed Utah No Mandate- Legislation Passed No Mandate- Code Amended Passed Legislation that will not permit the state to adopt any portion ofa nationally recognized code that will mandates residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings The'v'errnont Fire & Building Safety Code has been updated effective June 15, 2009. As currently required the State of Vermont, requirements for residential sprinklers in one- and two- family dwellings have been amended out of the adoption of the 2006 Life Safety Code. Vermont Virginia No Mandate- Code Amended At the Board of Housing and Community Development meeting in July 2009, the board adopted proposed regulations which deleted the sprinkler provisions of the 2009 edition of the International Residential Code. The updates to the Virginia USBC will be final on March 1, 2011. Washington No Mandate- Code ruueuded On November 12, 2009 the Council completed adoption of the 2009 International Building, Residential, Mechanical and Fire Codes and. the 2009 Uniform Plumbing Code. These codes, with state amendments, will be effective on July 1, 20I0.The Council amended the 2009 IRC Section 313: Automatic Fire Sprinklers, moving this section to an appendix, pre - approved for local adoption West Virginia No Mandate - Code Amended The State of West Virginia has completed the adoption process of the 2009 International Codes, and has excluded the requirements for mandatory sprinklers by deleting Section R313 from the 2009 International Residential Code. Wisconsin No Mandate- Code Amended Wisconsin revised their Uniform Dwelling Code to mirror the 2009 International Residential Code. In regards to the 2009 IRC requirement for sprinklers in one- and two- family, Wisconsin did not include the mandatory installation language. Wyoming No Action Reported 6y del xforme HOME SMOKE ALARMS — THE DATA AS CONTEXT FOR DECISION Marty Ahrens Fare Analysis and Research Division National Fire Protection Association January 2008 Original source of publication: Fire Technology, January WO , IDOI: 10.1007/s10694-e08-0045-9. The original publication is onailainie aII wwwsnrinngeu°lanai<.cuaa 7a?io nai ,Fire P eniuon AM C'S CS ardu Park, Q 2169 -747 uui',pL org TAY AthnowieSgeneuu ¢a The National Fire Protection Association thanks all the fire departments and state fire authorities who participate in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NF1RS) and the annual NFP,4 fire experience survey. These firefighters are the original sources of the detailed data that make this analysis possible. Their contributions allow us to estimate the size of the fire problem. We are also grateful to the U.S. Fire Administration for its wove in developing, coordinating, and maintaining NFIRS. For more information about the National Fire Protection Association, visit www.nfpa.org or call 617- 770 -3000. To learn more about the One -Stop Data Shop go to www.nfpa,org /osds or calf 617- 984 -7443. Copies of this analysis are available fro National Fire Protection Association One -Stop Data Shop 1 Barterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169 -7471 www.nfpa.org e -mail: osds @nfpa.org phone: 617 -984 -7450 NEPA No. Index 1321 Copyright CO 2008, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA Home Smoke Alarms — The Data as Context for Decision Abstract Considerable attention has been devoted to how home smoke alarms could be more effective at preventing fire deaths The death rate per 100 reported home fires is half as high in homes with working smoke alarms compared to homes without this protection. This paper summarizes what is known about the performance and effectiveness of home smoke alarms and of victim characteristics in home fires with and without operating smoke alarms based on statistical analysis of actual fire experience data Special studies on other factors affecting smoke alarm performance, audibility, and nuisance alarms are also discussed. The paper also identifies several questions that cannot, at present, be conclusively addressed. 1. INTRODUCTION Many researchers focus on various aspects of smoke alarm functioning such as the effectiveness of different types of sensors, particularly ionization and photoelectric, smoke alarm audibility under different conditions, nuisance alarms, and the prevalence of smoke alarms in different populations. Code developers and authorities work to provide prudent and reasonable guidance and requirements in the face of often incomplete information. In attempting to improve one aspect of performance, other aspects may be overlooked. Data about smoke alarm presence, their functioning, reasons for failure, and the victims in actual fires provide a necessary backdrop to determine how great the impact of different changes might be. When smoke alarms do not operate, they typically have been disabled due to nuisance alarms. Studies have identified audibility as a concern for a number of populations, including older adults, children, and those impaired by drugs or alcohol, and in a variety of environmental conditions, including households with high levels of ambient noise or closed doors. This paper includes national estimates of smoke alarm performance and victim characteristics in reported U.S. fires. Findings from the literature are also discussed. Several questions are noted that cannot be answered with existing data. Many, particularly the exact timing of events (when in the fire development a smoke alarm sounded, when a smoldering fire transitioned to flaming, and when the fire became lethal) are unlikely to be answerable. 2. METHODOLOGY The national fire experience statistics in this analysis are estimates derived from Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire Administration's (USFA's) National Fire Incident Reporting System ( NFIRS) [I] and the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's) annual survey of U.S. fire departments. NFIRS is a voluntary system by which participating fire departments report detailed factors about the fires to which they respond. NFIRS collects information on where and when each fire occurred. It also collects detailed information on fire causes, presence and operation of 1 automatic detection equipment, and victim characteristics. Roughly two- thirds of U.S. fire departments participate, although not all of these departments provide data every year. Using NFIRS data alone would underestimate the extent of the fire problem. Version 5.0 of NFIRS introduced new codes, coding rules and definitions. The share of NFIRS data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0 has also been increasing since its introduction in 1999. Data originally collected in older versions is converted to NFIRS 5.0 prior to its release in the national NFIRS database. Because of the differences between NFIRS 5.0 and earlier versions, conversion is not exact. Consequently, it is advisable to use only data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0 for most analyses. National estimates of specific fire problems are obtained by comparing the results from NFIRS 5.0 with the results of NFPA's annual sample -based fire department experience survey. This survey collects summary data only and lacks detail. NFPA's survey is sent to all local fire departments protecting population of 50,000 or more and a random sample, stratified by population, of the smaller departments. In most years, the sample size is sufficient to result in completed surveys returned from roughly 10% of the nation's fire departments. Survey results are used to estimate the total number of reported U.S. fires and associated losses by broad occupancy class and general incident type. Percentages of specific fire circumstances and causes from NFIRS 5.0 are applied to the projected totals from the NFPA survey. This approach is based on the national estimates methodology described by Hall and Harwood [2] with modifications to account for the fact that NFIRS data not collected originally according to NFIRS 5.0 rules and definitions has been omitted from the analysis. All of the estimates derived from NFIRS are based on coded data provided by the fire service. In this analysis, the term "home" encompasses one- and two- family dwellings, including manufactured homes, and apartments. Apartments include tenements, flats, townhouses, and properties of similar configuration, regardless of ownership. The total number of structure fires in homes ( NFIRS 5.0 property use codes 419 and 429), including one- and two- family dwellings (property use 419) and apartments (property use 429), was calculated by multiplying percentage of structure fires in these properties in NFIRS 5.0 by the projected total number of structure fires derived from the NFPA survey. In NFIRS 5.0, a smoke alarm or fire detection device is considered present if it is in the area of the fire or if occupants were alerted by a detection device in a confined fire NFIRS 5.0 introduced incident type codes (incident type 1 13 -1 18) for certain confined structure fires, referred to as "confined fires," including cooking fires confined to the cooking vessel, chimney fires that were confined to the chimney, confined fuel burner fires, confined incinerator and compactor fires, and contained or confined trash fires without damage to the structure or contents in response to firefighter complaints about repeatedly documenting the same details for common minor incidents. Very limited causal and detection information is required about these incidents. The only required detection element for these confined fires asks if detection equipment alerted occupants. If the detection equipment was coded as "alerted occupants," it was assumed that a smoke alarm was present and operated. When this equipment did not alert occupants, it was assumed to have not operated or not have been present. Because a fire may be 2 2 discovered before a smoke alarm operates, a smoke alarm may operate in the absence of occupants, or a confined fire may have been too small to activate detection equipment, "smoke alarm alerted occupants in confined fire" should be considered a lower bound of operating smoke alarms in these incidents while "smoke alarms did not alert occupants in confined fire" should be considered the upper bound of possible confined fires with no or no working smoke alarms. Building fires, fires in structures other than buildings, and fires in mobile property used as fixed structures not captured in these specific confined fire categories (incident type 110 -129, except 113-118) are grouped into a category called "non - confined structure fires" although it is possible for other fire scenarios in the non - confined group to result in damage confined to the object of origin. Queries were done separately for confined and non - confined structure fires, and for one - and two- family dwellings, and apartments. Unknown data (except for unknown occupancy) was allocated proportionally among known data. National fire statistics in this analysis are based on fires reported to U.S. municipal fire depaihuents and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. Casualty and loss projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. In the tables, fires are rounded to the nearest hundred, civilian deaths and injuries are rounded to the nearest ten, and direct property damage is rounded to the nearest million dollars. Property damage has not been adjusted for inflation. Sums may not equal totals due to rounding errors. Unknown data, with the exception of property use, were allocated proportionally. 3. CURRENT STATUS OF SMOKE ALARMS EN HOMES From 1977 to 1984, the use of home smoke alarms skyrocketed [3,4,5]. Most of these smoke alarms were single- station, battery- operated, ionization -type devices. From 1984 through 1993, the growth in usage was much less rapid but still fairly steady [6]. Usage grew more slowly from 1993 through 2004 [7]. As of 2004, 96% of all homes surveyed by telephone, or 24 of every 25 homes, reported having at least one smoke alarm. These findings are based on telephone surveys. Data from the 2000 U.S. Census show that 2.4% of U.S homes had no telephones [8]. Ninety-four percent of the fire detection devices found in reported non - confined home structure fires in 2000 -2004 were designed to be triggered by smoke. These fires accounted for 95% of the associated deaths Three percent were combination units designed to operate in response to smoke or heat. Only 1% were definitely not designed to detect smoke but were designed only to detect heat. Because home smoke alarms are so prevalent, the term "smoke alarm" is used as an all encompassing phrase throughout this report when describing early fire warning devices or systems in the home. For simplicity's sake, the term "smoke alarm" is used in this analysis to include ali types of fire warning equipment used in homes, including those involving detection of smoke, heat or sprinkler water flow. During the same period, almost half of the reported home fires occurred in properties in which smoke alarms were either not present or not working. Smoke alarms operated in roughly half (49 %) of the reported home tires and in 34% of home fire deaths. Table 1 shows that fires with operating smoke alarms include 26% of fires in which smoke alarms alerted occupants in confined structure fires and 23% in which smoke alarms operated in non - confined Tres. 3 3 The category of `no operating smoke alarm" includes a) non- confined fires in which no smoke alarms present at all: 5) non - confined fires in which. smoke alarms were present but did not operate; and c) confined fires in which a smoke alarm did not alert occupants. Non- contned fires in which smoke alarms. were present but failed to operate accounted for 7% of reported home fires and 22% of home fire deaths. Non- confined fires with no smoke alamms present accounted for 24% of the fires and 43% of the deaths. Confined fires in which smoke alarms did not alert occupants accounted for 15% of the reported home tires and less that I% of the deaths. Total Operating smoke alarm No operating smoke alarm Fire too small to operate 0.55 0.79 0 0.08 3 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 Civilian death rate per 100 reported fires Figure 1. 2000 -2004 Ciivilian Death Rate in Home Fires by Smoke Alarm Status. Figure l shows the death rate per 100! reported home structure fires by smoke alarm status. These rates, and the numbers of fires and deaths in each condition used to calculate these rates, are also shown in Table 1. In 2000 -2004, the death rate was twice as high when no operating . smoke alarm was present (1.13) compared to reported home fires with operating smoke alarms (0.55).. In other words, a working smoke alarm in a reported home reduces the risk of death b}■ half. This is not the same as saying the chance of survival doubles; Assumimi, a potential for one death per fire, a 100% chance of dying would mean that every tire is fatal, or; roughly, 100 deaths per 100 fires. Fortunately, that is not the case. The chances of surviving a reported home fire when working smoke alarms are present are 99.45 %° (NO minus 0.55) vs. 98.87% (100 minus 1.13) in home tires with no working smoke alarms. The first number is barely higher than the second and certainly not double the second number. Table 1 showed that during the five -year period of 2000 -2004, an estimated average of 375,200 home structure Gres were reported per year. These fires caused an annual average of 2,970 civilian deaths at a rate of 0.79 deaths per 100 reported home fires. Using average death rates, per 100 reported fires for home fires with (0.55) and without ( 1.13) working smoke alarms, the predicted number of home fire deaths would be 2,070 if every home had a working smoke alarm, and 4,230 if no smoke alarms were present at all. Relative to the current death toll, then, 890 lives would be saved with working smoke alarms in every home. An additional 1,260 lives would be lost if no working smoke alarms were present. Because there is evidence that working smoke alarms often act so early that they convert what would have been a reported fire into a very small, unreported fire, the potential savings from universal working smoke alarms could be even larger. Two- thirds of the smoke alarms in U.S. non - confined horses structure fires with this equipment were powered by batteries only. These fires resulted in 73% of the associated deaths. The 15% percent of incidents with hardwired smoke alarms with battery backup resulted in 10% of the deaths. The 14% of reported fires with smoke alarms that were hardwired only resulted in i2% of the deaths. Figure 2 shows the extent of flame damage and power source in non - confined home structure fires with working smoke alarms. Flame damage was confined to the room of origin in 68% of the non - confined home structure fires in which working smoke alarms were powered by batteries compared to 77% of such fires with hardwired smoke alarms, including those with and without battery backup. Hardwired smoke alarms are more likely to be interconnected and to sound throughout the home when one is activated. Confined to object of origin Confined to room of origin Confined to floor of origin Confined to building of origin 2% Extended beyond building of 1 origin 2% 45 40% ® Hardwired (with or without battery backup) ❑ Battery only 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Percent of Ares Figure 2. 2000 -2004 Extent of Flame Damage by Working Smoke Alarm Power Source 4. FACTORS LIMITING SMOKE ALARM EFFECTIVENESS Smoke alarms only provide a warning. For the warning to be useful, it must be heard. Those hearing it must be able to take appropriate action. Escape may be impossible if alternate exits are blocked, if an individual is intimate with ignition, or if someone cannot or does not move quickly out of danger. Tables 2 -4 provide information about the victims of 2000 -2004 non - confined fatal home fires (excluding fires that were considered too small to trigger the alarm) by smoke alarm status. Table 2 shows the victim's general location at the time of fatal injury. Sixty-one percent of the victims with operating smoke alarms were in the area of origin when injured compared to 53% with none present and 43% with smoke alarms that did not operate. People who are intimate with ignition may be severely injured before the fire has grown large enough to activate a smoke alarm. Table 3 shows the victim's activity at time of fatal injury. Eight percent of the victims of fires in which smoke alarms operated were trying to fight the fire themselves when fatally injured, compared to only 3% when no smoke alarms were present and none in fires in which the smoke alarms did not operate. Table 4 shows the human factors that contributed to the fatal injury. Physical disability was a factor contributing to the injury of 10% of the victims with operating smoke alarms but only 6% of the victims with non - operating smoke alarms and 5% with no smoke alarms at all. Possible mental disability was a factor contributing to the injury of 5% of the victims with operating smoke alarms but only 2% of the victims with non - operating smoke alarms and 3% with no smoke alarms at all. Multiple entries are allowed for human factors, meaning that for some victims, more than one of these factors may apply. 4.1 Many homes with smoke alarms do not have smoke alarms on every level The National Smoke Detector Project found that 26% of the households surveyed had less than one alarm per floor.[9] Additional households may have had too few smoke alarms to protect widely separated sleeping areas on the same floor. Researchers estimated that 43% of the households had less than one working smoke alarm per floor. A 2000 study of 691 homes in rural Iowa found that 86% had at least one smoke alarm. The study also found that smoke alarms were not installed according to NFPA guidelines in 57% of the homes with smoke alarms. In 85% of these cases (48% of the homes with at least one smoke alarm), a smoke alarm had not been installed on every leve1.[10] Basements were the least likely level to have smoke alarms. Overall, only 22% of the homes were fully protected by smoke alarms according to these guidelines . Homes that were poorly maintained, damaged, or cluttered were less likely to have the full smoke alarm protection of working smoke alarms correctly installed on every level of the home. 4.2 Sound and waking effectiveness Table 3 shows that 37% of the people who died in fires with working smoke alarms were sleeping when fatally injured. The CPSC studied the sound effectiveness of residential smoke alarms. [11] They noted that the smoke alarms that are currently available are effective at waking adults who are not under the influence of alcohol or drugs or who are not sleep deprived. However, the devices may not reliably wake older adults with hearing loss. The home layout 6 6 and smoke alarm locations can influence whether the warning will be heard; earlier warning is provided by interconnected smoke alarms. A 2005 study by CPSC found that a closed lightweight door reduced the volume of a smoke alarm signal from another room by 10 to 20 dB. The signal was weakened by roughly 20 dB each level it traveled. The layout of the home also mattered. The authors concluded that single - station smoke alarms in homes with two or three floors may not be adequate to alert unimpaired adults in all parts of the home [12]. In her review of the literature on sleep and waking to fire alarms,[13] Dorothy Bruck concluded that louder signals are needed when significant background noise is present and that arousal thresholds vary significantly from individual to individual. Sleep deprived adults are Tess likely to wake to a smoke alarm, as are young children and people under the influence of alcohol, marijuana or sleep inducing medication. The higher frequency hearing loss that often accompanies aging reduces the probability that older adults will wake to a smoke alarm. Bruck et al also studied the effectiveness of pre - recording of the mother's voice, a female actor's voice, a standard Australian smoke alarm with a high pitch signal of roughly 4000 Hz, and a lower -pitch (dominant tones of 500Hz, 1500 Hz, and 2500 Hz) temporal three (T -3) signal in waking sleeping children ages 6 -10 [14]. The voice alarms and the T -3 lower pitch signal were more effective than the high - pitched, standard signal, suggesting that lower frequency may be the most important component in effectiveness. In their study on the effects of alcohol on waking to fire alarm signals among young adults, Ball and Bruck found that a female voice and the T -3 lower pitch signal were both more effective than the high - pitched Australian standard alarm [15]. However, even a blood alcohol concentration of .05 significantly reduced the likelihood of waking to any of the auditory signals. With blood alcohol levels of .08, the waking was even less frequent, but the decrease was much less than was seen between the sober and the .05 BAC. Individual responses varied widely. A Fire Protection Research Foundation study on optimizing the smoke alarm signal to reduce fire deaths in older adults played four different auditory signals of increasing volume to 42 older adults (ages 65 -85) when they were in deep sleep.[16] The four signals included a high - frequency T -3 signal used in current U.S. smoke alarms, a mixed signal T -3, a male voice, and a 500 Hz tone in the T -3 pattern. Researchers found that these subjects woke to the mixed frequency T -3 signal at a lower volume than the other three signals. Researchers also assessed the abilities of individuals woken by a smoke alarm. Physical functioning showed a decrement of roughly 10 -17% across the first five minutes after waking but no important effects were found on cognitive functioning. 5. NON - WORKING SMOKE ALARMS AND NUISANCE ALARMS As noted earlier, 22% of home fire deaths resulted from the 7% of home fires in which smoke alarms were present but failed to operate. Table 5 shows that in 54% of the non - confined home structure fires and 75% of the home fire deaths in which smoke alarms were present but failed to operate, smoke alarm batteries were missing or had been disconnected. In 19% of these fires and 7 7 7% of these deaths, batteries were dead or discharged. In 7% of the non - confined home fires and deaths with non - working smoke alarms, failures were due to hardwired power source problems. In CPSC's National Smoke Detector Project, when batteries were removed or disconnected from alarms, the leading reason was unwanted activations. Removal for this reason was eight times as frequent as removal to use the batteries in another product [17]. The leading problems cited for smoke alarms with dead batteries or missing or disconnected power sources were: 1) alarming to cooking fumes, and 2) alarming continuously when powered. Some of the latter may have been the device chirping to indicate a low battery. These two were cited with roughly equal frequency. Sounding too often for unspecified reasons was the next most frequently cited unwanted alarm problem. Alarming to steam or humidity was cited about one - fourth to one -third as often as either of the two leading problems. One -third of the devices studied for nuisance alarms in the National Smoke Detector Project were reportedly in locations that made nuisance alarms more likely, often less than five feet from a potential source of smoke, steam, or moisture sufficient to produce nuisance alarms. 5.1 Nuisance activations by type of smoke alarm Cooking smoke tends to contain more of the smaller particles (less than one micron) that activate an ionization -type device rather than the larger particles that activate a photoelectric -type device. In the National Smoke Detector Project, 97% of the devices tested for involvement in nuisance alarms were ionization -type devices, although they comprised only 87% of all devices in the study. An Alaskan study, published in 2000, installed photoelectric smoke alarms in 58 homes in two rural Eskimo Inupiat villages and ionization smoke alarms in 65 homes in two other similar villages.[18] Home area averaged roughly 1,000 square feet or less. Follow -up visits were made six months after the alarms were installed. At that time, 81% of the ionization homes had working smoke alarms compared to 96% of the homes with photoelectric devices. Ninety-two percent of the ionization homes and 11% of the photoelectric homes had experienced at least one false alarm. Ninety-three percent of the 69 ionization false alarms were due to cooking as were four of the six (67 %) of the photoelectric false alarms. Eighty-one percent of the ionization cooking false alarms were related to frying. Heating equipment triggered five (8 %) of the ionization false alarms and two (one- third) of the photoelectric false alarms. False alarms seemed to be more common in homes that were smaller, that used wood fuel for heat and in which the smoke alarms were located near the cooking areas. The authors conclude that "Photoelectric alarms may be the preferred choice for dwellings with limited living space and frequent false alarms." As part of their research into the performance of smoke alarms in today's homes, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted tests on a variety of scenarios associated with nuisance alarms. In these tests, they found that ionization smoke alarms had a tendency to activate in response to aerosols produced during some normal cooking. They recommended that such smoke alarms be placed as far as possible from cooking equipment but still in the protected area [19]. 8 8 5.2 Type of smoke alarm and battery by operational status A U.K. study examined the percentage of working smoke alarms by type installed in local authority inner city housing [20]. Eleven to twelve percent of the smoke alarms found in the homes at the beginning of the study were working. Five different types of smoke alarms were installed as part of this study. When the households were visited 15 months later, 93% still had smoke alarms installed. Fifty -four percent had a working smoke alarm. The alarm installed for the study was working in 51% of the homes. In homes with at least one smoker, 38% of the photoelectric (called optical in the study) alarms and 48% of the ionization alarms were working. Based only on the smoke alarms installed as part of this study, 1.5 months after installation, ▪ 56% of the ionization alarms with zinc batteries and no pause buttons operated; • 47% of the ionization alarms with zinc batteries and pause buttons operated; • 66% of the ionization alarms with lithium batteries and pause buttons operated; • 56% of the photoelectric alarms with lithium batteries operated; and • 36% of the photoelectric alarms with zinc batteries operated. The batteries were dead in 6% of the photoelectric alarms with zinc batteries. This was a larger share than was seen in any other type. Reports of low battery signals and battery changing among smoke alarms with zinc batteries were higher for alarms with photoelectric sensors (19% low battery signals and 26% battery changing) and those with ionization sensors and pause buttons (22% low battery signal and 25% battery changing), than they were for zinc battery ionization alarms without pause buttons (8% low battery signal and 13% battery changing). In a multivariate analysis that controlled for the type of battery, sensor and presence of a smoker, pause buttons were found to have a negative effect. 5.3 Smoke alarm activation to developing hazard Some of the nuisance activations, particularly from cooking, fall into a gray area. A sounding smoke alarm may remind a cook who has left the kitchen area of food on the stove requiring immediate attention. While not yet a fire, the potential exists if corrective action is not taken. If such action is taken, the situation can often be quickly resolved without fire department involvement. Only 12% of the cooking fires experienced by people interviewed in the English Housing Survey were reported to the fire depaT t vent. This was the lowest share of any of the fire causes studied [21]. 6. THE IONIZATION VS. PHOTOELECTRIC DEBATE The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conducted tests on different types of smoke and heat alarms under conditions found in today's households. These tests were designed to assess the performance of the different technologies and the effectiveness of current code requirements under different conditions, particularly those found in today's fatal fires. Although fire growth is faster today than in the past, both photoelectric and ionization smoke alarms provided warning early enough to provide the necessary escape time in most scenarios with ionization reacting more quickly to flaming fires and photoelectric operating faster to smoldering fires.[22] However, some concerns have been separately raised about whether ionization smoke alarms actually do operate early enough in smoldering fires and whether photoelectric do operate early enough in flaming fires. A special task group has been formed to assist the technical 9 9 committee for NFPA 728, National Fire Alarm Code ®, in evaluating the need for code changes addressing the type of sensor used in smoke alarms. 7. REMAINING QUESTIONS Unfortunately, NFIRS does not directly identify fires that began with a smoldering fire or provide any information on how long a tire smoldered. It does not distinguish between photoelectric and ionization smoke alarms, nor, in NFIRS 5.0, is the proximity of the smoke alarm to the area of origin captured. Details on the location of the smoke alarm in relation to occupants and whether the occupants heard it are also lacking. (Information is captured on whether the smoke alarm alerted occupants, but a home environment may have multiple occupants and people may be alerted before a smoke alarm sounds.) NFIRS does not collect data on whether smoke alarms were present on every level. Information from actual fires is not available on when in the fire sequence smoke alarms operated or when in the sequence conditions became lethal. Nor is adequate information available regarding the growth of the fire in relation to available exits, or whether the residents had developed and practiced an escape plan. The absence of this information makes it more difficult to estimate the likely impact of any specific change. .8. CONCLUSIONS When working smoke alarms are present, the death rate per 100 reported home fires is half that of properties without this protection. In 2000 -2004, an average of 1,020 people per year (34% of the home structure fire fatalities) died in homes with working smoke alarms. The percentage of fires spreading beyond the room of origin is lower in fires with hardwired smoke alarms than battery- operated devices. Because battery- operated devices are less likely to be interconnected, an activated battery- operated smoke alarm may be further from the area of origin and /or occupants, resulting in delay in automatic detection and /or notification. Victims of fatal fires with working smoke alarms were more likely to have been in the area of fire origin (61 %) and possibly severely injured very early in the fire development, to have had a physical or mental disability (10% and 5 %, respectively), or to have tried to fight the fire themselves (8 %) than are victims of fires without working smoking alarms. Special studies have found that many homes with smoke alarms do not have alarms on every level. Ambient noise can diminish a smoke alarm's waking effectiveness, as can closed doors. The high - frequency hearing loss associated with aging can reduce the probability that older adults will be roused by a typical smoke alarm. The typical signal is also Tess effective at waking children. Drugs, alcohol and medication can reduce the likelihood that a sleeping individual will be roused by a conventional smoke alarm. Some portion of the 34% of fire deaths resulting from fires with working smoke alarms may be reduced by changes in smoke alarm design and placement practices. Sensor changes may affect when a fire is discovered, signal changes may increase the likelihood that the alarm will be heard, and requirements for smoke alarms in bedrooms and interconnectivity increases the likelihood that occupants will be alerted to fire in another part of the home. None of these t0 10 changes will affect the availability of exits or the ability of people to physically remove themselves from danger. Twenty-two percent of the home fire deaths resulted from fires in which smoke alarms were present but failed to operate. Although nuisance activations, the leading reason for disabled smoke alarms, are produced by both ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms, studies suggest nuisance alarms are more common with ionization devices. In many cases, the smoke alarm was placed too close to cooking equipment or other potential alarm trigger. Forty-three percent of home fire deaths in 2000 -2004 occurred in properties with no smoke alarms at all. At a recent meeting on fire and fall prevention, attendees expressed concem that more stringent smoke alarm requirements and accompanying costs and liability issues could make it more difficult for smoke alarm installation programs to get any protection into high -risk homes that currently have none [23]. Smoke alarms are effective. Numerous studies have suggested areas for improvement. While it is often necessary to focus on only one or two aspects at a time, it is important to remember that a home fire is a complex environment. In addition to the characteristics of the smoke alarm, the fire itself, the occupants' location, condition and behavior, and exit availability all play a role in determining the outcome. REFERENCES 1. National Fire Incident Reporting System 5.0 Complete Reference Guide, U.S. Fire Administration National Fire Data Center Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Emmitsburg, MD 2006. 2. J. Hall, Jr. and B. Harwood, Beatrice, The National Estimates Approach to U.S. Fire Statistics ", Fire Technology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp 99 -113, May 1989, 3. Aerospace Corporation, Survey and Analysis of Occupant - Installable Smoke Detectors, Washington, D.C., 1977. 4. Elrick and Lavidge, Inc., A Detector in Every Other Home: Results of a Survey of Smoke And Fire Detector Owners: Full Report, Prepared For Federal Emergency Management Agency, Atlanta, 1980. 5. US Fire Administration, Residential Smoke and Fire Detector Coverage in the United States: Findings from a 1982 Survey. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1983. 6. Louis Harris Surveys for Prevention Magazine for 1983 -1995 estimates. 7. 1997 Fire Awareness Survey for NFPA, 1999 NFPA National Fire Escape Survey, and 2004 Fire Prevention Week survey for NFPA 8. U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division "Historical Census of Housing Tables: Telephones," 2004. 9. C. Smith, Smoke Detector Operability Survey — Report on Findings, Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, November 1993. 10. C. Peek -Asa, V. Allareddy, J. Yan, C. Taylor, J. Lundell, and C. Zwerling. "When One is Not Enough: Prevalence and Characteristics of Homes Not Adequately Protected by Smoke Alarms," Injury Prevention, 2005, vol. 11;11., pp. 364 -368, doi:10.1136/ip.2005.009175,. 11. A. Lee, J. Midgett and S. White. A Review of the Sound Effectiveness of Residential Smoke Alarms, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, December 2004, 12. A. Lee. The Audibility of Smoke Alarms in Residential Homes, Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, September 2005, revised January 2007, 13. D. Bruck, "The Who, What, Where and Why of Waking to Fire Alarms: A Review," Fire Safety Journal, Volume 36 (2001), pp. 623 -639. 14. D. Bruck, S. Reid, J. Kouzma, and M. Ball, "The Effectiveness of Different Alarms in Waking Sleeping Children," in Proceedings of the 3"1 International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire 2004, London, England, Interscience Communications Limited 2004, pp. 279 -289. 15. M. Ball and D. Bruck, "The Effect of Alcohol upon Response to Fire Alarm Signals in Sleeping Adults," Proceedings of the 3"i International Symposium on Human Behavior in Fire 2004, London, England, Interscience Communications Limited 2004, pp. 291 -301. 16. D. Bruck, I. Thomas and A. Kritikos. Investigation of Auditory Arousal with Different Alarm Signals in Sleeping Older Adults. Quincy, MA: The Fire Protection Research Foundation, May 2006, pp. 7 -9,. 17. C. Smith, Smoke Detector Operability Survey— Report on Findings, Bethesda, MD: U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, November 1993. 18. T. Fazzini, R. Perkins, and D. Grossman. "ionization and Photoelectric Smoke Alarms in Rural Alaskan Homes," West J. Med; 2000, vol. 173, pp. 89 -92. 19. R. Bukowski, R Peacock, J. Averill, T Cleary, N. Bryner, W. Walton, P. Reneke, and E. Kuligowski, NIST Technical Note 1455, Performance of Home Smoke Alarms: Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, July 2004, p. 250,. 20. D. Rowland, C. GiGuisseppi, 1. Roberts, K. Curtis, H. Roberts, L. Ginnelly, M., Sculpher, and A. Wade. "Prevalence of Working Smoke Alarms in Local Authority Inner City Housing: Randomised Controlled Trial, `8MJ2002; 325:9981.001, doi :10.1136/bmj.325.7371.998, 21. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Fires in the Home: Findings from the 2004/05 Survey of English Housing, London, U.K„ 2006. 22. R. Bukowski, R. Peacock, J. Averill, T. Cleary, N. Bryner, W. Walton, P. Reneke, and E.. Kuligowski, MST Technical Note 1455, Performance of Home Smoke Alarms: Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, July 2004, pp. xix-xxii, and 248 -249, 23. Remembering When"': A Fire and Fall Prevention Program for Older Adults Conference, Boston, December 2 -4, 2007. 12 12 Table 1. Home Structure Fires by Smoke Alarm Performance 2000 -2004 Annual Averages Smoke Alarm Status Smoke alarm operated in non - confined fire Smoke alarm alerted occupants in confined fire* Subtotal - Operating smoke alarm Smoke alarm present but failed to operate in non - confined fire No smoke alarm present in non - confined fire Smoke alarm did not alert occupants in confined fire* Subtotal - No operating smoke alarm Fire too small to operate in non - confined fire Fires 85,700 (23 %) 99,000 (26 %) 184,700 (49 %) Civilian Deaths Death Rate per 100 Civilian Fires Injuries 1,020 (34 %) 1.19 6,180 (43 %) 0 (0 %) 0.00 940 (7 %) 1,020 (34 %) 0.55 7,120 (49 %) 26,300 (7 %) 660 (22 %) 2.51 90,400 (24 %) 1,270 (43 %) 1.40 54,600 (15 %) 10 (0 %) 0.01 171,300 (46 %) 1,930 (65 %) 1.13 2,370 (16 %) 3,750 (26 %) 760 (5 %) 6,890 (48 %) Injury Direct Rate Property per 100 Damage Fires (in Millions) 7.22 $3,080 (56 %) 0.94 $0 (0 %) 3.85 $3,080 (56 %) 9.02 $700 (13 %) 4.15 81,620 (30 %) 1.40 $0 (0 %) 4.02 $2,320 (42 %) 19,100 (5 %) 20 (l %) 0.08 380 (3 %) 2.01 $100 (2 %) Total 375,200 (100 %) 2,970 (100 %) 0.79 14,390 100 %) 3.84 $5,500 (100 %) Table 2. Victim's Location at Time of Fatal Injury by Smoke Alarm Status 2000 -2004 Annual Averages Victim's Location In area of origin In building, but not in area of origin Column total Present and Operated 620 (61 %) (40%) Present but Did Not Operate 280 (43 %) 08 %) None Present 670 (53 %) (42 %) Row Total 1,580 000 %) 390 (38 %) (29 %) 370 (56 %) (27%) 590 (47 %) (44%) 1,360 (100%) 1,020 (100 %) (35%) 660(100 %)(22 %) 1,270 (100 %) (43 %) 2,940 (100 %) 13 13 Table 3. Activity at Time of Fatal Injury by Smoke Alarm by Smoke Alarm Status 2000 -2004 Annual Averages Activity Sleeping Escaping Unable to act Fire control Irrational act Unclassified activity Rescue attempt Returning to vicinity of fire before control Total 380 280 130 80 60 Present and Operated (37 %) (31%) (27 %) (3/%) (12 %) (39 %) (8 %) (70 %) (5 %) (44%) 40 (4 %) (35 %) 30 (3 %) (30 %) Present but Did Not Operate 320 (49 %) (27%) 180 (27 %) (20 %) 80 (12 %) (24 %) 0 (0 %) (0 %) 30 (4%) (21%) 30 (5 %) (27 %) 20 (3 %) (20%) None Present 510 (40 %) (42%) 440 (35 %) (49 %) 120 (10 %) (37 %) 30 (3 %) (30%) 40 (4 %) (35 %) Row Total L,210 (100 %) 900 (100 %) 320 (100%) 110 (100 %) 130 (100 %) 40 (3 %) (37 %) 110 (100%) 50 (4 %) (50 %) 100 (100%) 30 (3 %) (49%) 10 (1 %) (13 %) 30 (2 %) (38 %) 1,020 (100 %) (35 %) 660 (100 %) (22 %) 1,270 (100 %) (43 %) 70 (100 %) 2,940 (100 %) Table 4. Home Fire Deaths by Human Factor Contributing to Injury* and Smoke Alarm Status 2000 -2004 Annual Averages Human Factor* Asleep Possibly impaired by alcohol Physically disabled Possibly mentally disabled Possibly impaired by other drug or chemical Unattended or unsupervised person Unconscious Physically restrained None Not reported Total Present and Present but Operated Did Not Operate 260 (25 %) (28 %) 290 (44 %) (32 %) 120 (12 %) (40 %) 110 (10 %) (52 %) 50 (5 %) (49%) 40 (4 %) (44 %) 30 (3%) (24 %) 20 (2 %) (37%) 0 (0%) (30 %) 230 (22%) (40%) 320 (32%) (33 %) 1,020(100 %) (35 %) 60 (10 %)(21 %) 40 (6 %) (19%) 10 (2 %) (12 %) 10 (2%) (18 %) 60 (9"/) (47 %) 10 (2/0) (18%) 0 (0 %) (25%) 100 (15" /) (18 %) 160 (25 %) (17 %) None Row Present Total 350 (28 %) (39 %) 900 (100 %) 110 (9 %) (39%) 300 (100%) 60 (5 %) (29%) 200 (100%) 40 (3 %) (38 %) 100 (100 %) 30 (3 %) (38 %) 80 (100%) 40 (3 %) (29 %) 130 (100 %) 30 (2 %) (45%) 60 (100%) 0 (0 %) (44%) 10 (100 %) 250 (20 %) (43 %) 580 (100 %) 490 (38 %) (50 %) 970 (100%) 660 (L00 %) (22 %) 1,270 (100%) (43 %) 2,940 (100 %) 14 14 Table 5. Reason for Smoke Alarm Failure in Non - Confined Home Structure Fires 2000 -2004 Annual Averages Reason for Failure Missing or disconnected battery Dead or discharged battery Unclassified reason for failure Hardwired power failure, shut -off or disconnect Lack of cleaning Defective unit Improper installation or placement Fires 14,300 5,100 2,600 1,800 900 800 800 Direct Civilian Civilian Property Damage Deaths Injuries (in Millions) 500 (75 %) 1,640 (69 %) $380 (55 %) 50 (7 %) 360 (15 %) $110 (16 %) 20 (3 %) 110 (5 %) $80 (II %) 40 (7 %) 30 (4 %) 10 (1 %) 130 (5%) 70 (3 %) 40 (2 %) $70 (10 %) $20 (3 %) $10 (2 %) 20 (3 %) 40 (2 %) $20 (3 %) Total 26,300 (100 %) 660 (100 %) 2,370 (100 %) $700 (100 %) 15 15 y;;,,r /aer : sk a.a:i.r +..-.e . � 4to i' Ma.1 Fir in On{-2 nd Tw c Stock SF Units, Thous 85,000 80`,000 1. 75,000 70,000 65,000 ),000 56,000 56,000 nd Fires 600,000 � Nei NOS) N ©\oPr Nc5� �cb% X45% ACS9 �6ti �c? 600,000 400,00- 300,000 200,000 SF Att rhed and Detached Units (thous) Fires Jusiilj Stock trod C ViE3f H v Lcdttins in Croe -end Twift. Family Unfits SF Units, Thous Civilian death 05,000 -:- 4,700 80,000 75,000 - 70,000 - 65,000 - 60,000 ;- 55,000 . 1• -... NF �,ti � 10 $�� 10 N #ti Not Not Not O ti 9q, SF Attached and Detached Units (thous) _ - Civilian Deaths 4,200 3,700 ,200 2,700 2,200 1 3.( el Fr Um - ' Al Civ I 70.00 - 60.00 - 50.00 - 40.00 30.00 - 20.00 10.00 0.00 II IIu Rate `:r n Sinc -l�= 3�r • ® -- Pi 010 0 Ne ,0 NO hes,' Net Ne Ner ''� x,00 ,09 re � �� �e Death Rate per Million SF Units eq1111:31- Lokifin Q,tHrn. Fttort 200.'2[.104 AnttE ecit n. etr. t. ThrV.T - . ......• , . t. Aidle . ■ S101411E:2) IT rizl E tosure cciirfip t T .r.. i -I rIir• • " : ritc e,:cntairied _ gri .\h11 iFijiii Vat tharq is- .ajucfe:= alavnu alp vrcn ��m`RSti'n. US, 4us®hoVds Priced Out of the Market by increasee in the Median Moine Price 1,200,200 0 $224,400 $229,400 9,824,024 2,410,410 $234,400 5239,400 House Price 4,004,014 $244,400 $249,400 � .�ch s Would not choose regardless of cost $2,300 bedroom bedroom 3 b drocni .r,. tor 3 b,. 37 4be1-ws 3. � 480:90 4)1* sprinkle.' ;sygti, 1"4 ° its "ris... ) . nS