Post on 30-May-2018
transcript
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
1/56
armsWhy are people dying in fires with
wor ng mo e arms
,
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
2/56
AndreaDennis,
Kyle
Raulin,
AlSchlessman,ErinDeMarco,
andChristineWilson
Thesefivestudentsdiedat
OhioStateUniversit on
April13,2003
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
3/56
JulieTurnbull,
KateWelling&
SteveSmith
diedin
this
houseonApril
10th,2005at
Miami
University
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
4/56
(posted,Nov.
5,
2007)
e uty am y osest reeo t e rc ren n
a
fire.
ReporterKrause:Atwhatpointdidyouhear
yoursmo e
etector
man a
e uty:
Never. Theyneverwentoff.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
5/56
Chickasaw Alabama
(May28,
2008)
couldnotmakeitoutofthefamilyhouse.
thatneverwentoff.
smoke
or
they
sound
very
late....Williams
attorneyRichardTaylor
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
6/56
October17,
2008
restarte ye ectr ca pro em s year
old
Brett
McDavid.
McDavids batterypoweredsmokedetector
a e
tooperate
nvest gators
sa
n
t e r
initialreport.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
7/56
Mont elierVT.
(December18,
2005)
.
eapar men a ree ar w re on za onsmokedetectors,includingoneinthegirls
smoke..RussellAshe,
Deputy
Chief
for
the
Barre CityFireDepartment
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
8/56
ThisHappenstooOften
Ft.Wa ne,IN
(January23,2009)
afterbeingrescuedfromapartmentcomplex.
atleasttworesidentsoftheapartmenttoldtheNewsSentineltheywokearound5a.m.nottoa
saidshe
heard
from
other
students
whose
apartmentwascompletelyfullofsmokeande ra arms no soun e er.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
9/56
HOMESTRUCTUREFIRES
MartyAhrens
NationalFireProtectionAssociation
FireAnalysisandResearchDivision
Roughlyhalfofallhomefiredeathsresult
. .
and7:00a.m.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
10/56
FireDeathsandInjuries:FactSheet
en ers
or
sease
on ro
an
reven on
Mostvictims
of
fires
die
from
smoke
or
toxic
.
Smokingistheleadingcauseoffirerelateddeaths(Ahrens2009a).
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
11/56
THESMOKINGMATERIALFIREPROBLEM
JohnR.Hall,Jr.
FireAnal sis
and
Research
Division
NationalFireProtectionAssociation
November2007
Homesmokingrelatedfiredeathsaremorelikelyto
occurinfiresthatstartinthelivingroom,family
room,or
den
than
in
the
bedroom.
theseroomstogetheraccountforroughlytwo
r so
ome
smo ng
re a e
re
ea s,
u
e
combinationoflivingrooms,familyroomsanddens
.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
12/56
ActivityatTimeofVictimsFatalInjury
bySmokeAlarmPresenceandOperation
.
19992001AnnualAverages
Activity Presentand Presentbut None
Operated DidntOperate Present
Sleeping 38% 57% 49%
Escaping 21% 20% 27%
UnabletoAct 10% 14% 11%
FireControl 9% 2% 1%
IrrationalAct 7% 0% 5%
UnclassifiedActivity 5% 4% 1%
Returningto
Vicinity
of
Fire
before
control4% 0% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100%
Note: Percentages were calculated on known data only.
Source: National estimates based on NFIRS and NFPA survey
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
13/56
SmokeDetectorHistory
SMOKEDETECTORS FIRESAFETYS
SmokeDetectorusagerosefrom10%in1975to
95%in
2000
while
home
fire
deaths
were
cut
in
half.
Thehomesmokealarmiscreditedasthegreatestsuccessth
,
italone representedahighlyeffectivefiresafetytechnology
withleverageonmostofthefiredeathproblemthatwent
fromtokenusagetonearlyuniversalusageintheshortterm.
NIST,
2004
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
14/56
IS THE REDUCTION IN FIRE DEATHS
DUE
TOSMOKE
DETECTORS?
There
has
been
a
dramatic
increase
in
full
spectrum
burn
centers.
Significantreductioninpeoplewhosmoke.
Fireretardants
have
been
added
to
mattresses
and
furniture.
Buildingcodesandinspectionshaveimproved.
Improvementsin
wiring
and
fire
related
construction.
Homeheatingdeathshavedecreasedbyover70%.
Fire deaths have gone down because there are fewer fires
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
15/56
FireDeathsperMillionPeople
1950
1980
40
30
35 Smoke alarms
20
25
DeathsDownward trend started well
5
10
Trend
before widespread usage ofsmoke detectors beginning in
1970
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
Civilian deaths per million people from fire and flame in the United States, (1950, 1955-
1979) Source: National Safety Council
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
16/56
Thenumberofdeathshasremainedconstantfor
t e
ast
years,
eat s
orevery
,
res.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
17/56
TheU.S.fireproblem
Residentialstructurefires
Year Fires CivilianDeaths
1977 750,000 6,135
1981 733 000 5 540
1989 513,500 4,435
1997 406,500 3,390
, ,
Source: NFPA survey
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
18/56
WHITEPAPER
HOME
SMOKE
ALARMS
ANDOTHERFIREDETECTION
ANDALARMEQUIPMENT
Public/PrivateFireSafetyCouncil
April,2006
Thehomefiredeathraterelativetonumberoffiresisessentiallyunchangedfrom1977to2003.3
.
series,and
population
data
from
Statistical
Abstract
of
the
United
States
2004
2005,
U.S.
CensusBureau,Washington,DC,2004.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
19/56
IONIZATION: Contains a small amount of radioactivity that conducts electricity.
Electric current flows continuously between two electrodes in the chamber. Whensmoke particles enter, they disturb the flow, causing the alarm to go off.
.When smoke enters, it deflects the beam, causing it to strike the photocell and setoff the alarm.
IONIZATION VS. PHOTOELECTRIC: Ionization alarms are more sensitive to the
fires. Photoelectric alarms are more sensitive to the large particles of combustionemitted by smoldering fires.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
20/56
NIST2008
ALARMTIMES
IN
SECONDS
39 minutes after the photoelectric
The photoelectric is blue The ionization is red
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
21/56
ASET
Flaming Photoelectric Ionization DualIon/Photo
Living Room 108 152LivingRoom(Rep) 134 172
u urn s
Bedroom 350 374
Bedroom(closed) 3416 3438
SMOLDERING SMOLDERING SMOLDERING SMOLDERING
LivingRoom 3298 (55min) 16 3332
Livin Room AC 2773 46min 54 2108
COOKING COOKING COOKING COOKING
Kitchen 952(16min) 278(5min) 934
NIST Technical Note 1455-1 (page 243 and is two story alarm on each level, ASET in seconds) February 2008 RevisionPerformance of Home Smoke Alarms Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential FireSettings
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
22/56
AMessagefromtheU.S.FireAdministratoraboutHome
Smoke
AlarmsPostedonAugust27,2008byGregoryB.Cade,U.S.FireAdministrator
IncooperationwiththeUnitedStatesFireAdministration(USFA),, . . ,
NIST
has
conducted
an
evaluation
of
current
and
emerging
smoke
alarmtechnology
responses
to
common
residential
fire
scenarios
and
nuisancealarmsources.
Smokealarmsofeithertheionizationtypeorthephotoelectrictypeconsistentlyprovidedtimeforoccu ants to
esca e
from
most
residential
fires
althoughinsomecasestheescapetimeprovidedcanbeshort.
Consistent with rior findin s ionization t e alarms
providedsomewhat
better
response
to
flaming
fires
thanphotoelectricalarms,andphotoelectricalarmsrovide often considerabl fasterres onseto
smolderingfiresthanionizationtypealarms.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
23/56
NIST sponsored conference-response times are given in seconds
Ionization1.3%
Photoelectric2.5%
(CeilingPosition #)
. . . . .
Test Device (2) (3) (5) (6) (1) (2)
UL268 Ion 3459 3317 3843 3614 3864 3591
Smold.Smoke
Photo 2421 2253 2916 2916 2726 2823
. .
UL268
Flamm.Liquid
Ion 31 36 61 56 65 65
Photo 26 29 55 55 57 57Diff.Avg.Time(Ion Photo) 5 7 6 1 8 8
[4] Qualey, J, Desmarais, L, and Pratt, J.; Fire Test Comparisons of Ion andPhotoelectric Smoke Detector Response Times; Fire Suppression and DetectionResearch Application Symposium, Orlando, FL, February 7 - 9, 2001
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
24/56
UL268Tests DistanceFromTestFire
Photoelectric0.5%
8.0ft 17.7ft. 19.2ft.
UL268
Smold.SmokeIon 3318 3236 3691 3471 3677 3474
Diff.ofAvg.Time(Ion Photo) 1762 1659 1683 1463 1823 1472
UL268
Ion 29 31 60 56 65 63
amm. qu
Photo 18 20 45 45 53 52
Diff.Avg.Time(Ion Photo) 11 11 15 11 12 11
[4] Qualey, J, Desmarais, L, and Pratt, J.; Fire Test Comparisons of Ion and
From the AUBE 01 Conference/ NIST
Research Application Symposium, Orlando, FL, February 7 - 9, 2001
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
25/56
Thedataforthesmolderingsmoketestsshowthattypicallythe
photoelectricdetectorssetto2.5%/ftresponded12 18minutes
earlier
thanthe
Type
A
ion
detectors
set
to
1.3
%/ft.
Table
2shows
that
whenbothwereevaluatedat0.5%/ft,thephotoelectricdetectors
typicallyresponded25 30minutesfasterthantheTypeAiondetectors.AsTables1and2show,intheUL268FlammableLiquidFire
tests,there
was
no
significant
difference
in
response
time
between
the
photoelectric andTypeAiondetectorswhethercomparedattheirdefault
sensitivities(2.5%/ftand1.3%/ft)orthesame,highersensitivity(0.5
%/ft).
StatementinReport: Notethatnotallions .
According
to
NIST
in
2001
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
26/56
ManufacturersAdjustingSensitivityLevels
ua
ensor
arms
Incurrent racticemanufacturersma setalarm
sensitivities
in
dual
photoelectric/ionization
alarms
less
sensitivethaninindividualsensoralarmswiththeintentto
.
Ideallythe
response
of
dual
ionization/photoelectric
units
should
not
lag
significantlybehindthecollectiveresponseofindividualunits,especiallytoflamingfires.Furtherevaluationofthedualionization/photoelectric
smokealarmsshouldbeconductedtoestablishthesetpoint
characteristicsthat
allow
for
effective
alarm
response
comparable
to
individualunits,whilerecognizingthatsetpointchangesmayalsobe
beneficialinthereductionoffalsealarms.
(NFPATaskGroupofTechnicalCommittee,February2008)
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
27/56
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
28/56
separately. Therefore, manufacturers have the freedom toset each sensors sensitivity separately. Since an
standards, it is not obvious what overall benefit isachieved from a dual alarm with an additional sensor
technology that could be more or less sensitive thanwhat would be found in a standalone unit employingsuch a sensor.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
29/56
PerformanceofDualPhotoelectric/Ionization SmokeAlarmsinFullScaleFireTests
ThomasCleary
BuildingandFireResearchLaboratory
National
Institute
of
Standards
and
Technolo
Gaithersburg,MD
(301)9756858
thomas.cleary@nist.gov
Abstract
Overa
range
of
ionization
sensor
settings
examined,
dual
alarm
responsewasinsensitivetotheionizationsensorsettingfor,
whiledualalarmresponsetothekitchenfireswasverysensitivetotheionizationsensorsetting.TestsconductedintheNational
Instituteof
Standards
and
Technology
(NIST)
fire
emulator/detector
eva uators owe t att eionizationsensorsino t es e ionizationalarmsanddualalarmsspanarangeofsensitivitysettings. Whilethereappearstobenoconsensusonsensitivitysettin for ionization sensors it ma be desirable to tailor sensor
sensitivitiesin
dual
alarms
for
specific
applications,
such
as
near
kitchenswherereducingnuisancealarmsmaybeagoal,orinbedroomswherehighersmokesensitivitymaybeagoal.
Presented at the Fire Protection Research Foundation's 13th annual Suppression and Detection Research &
Applications Symposium (SUPDET 2009), February 24-27, 2009, Orlando, FL.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
30/56
ULTesting
Video
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
31/56
SmokeAlarmPresenceandPerformanceSeptember
2009
NFPA
Report
by
Marty
Ahrens
40%
23%NoSmokeDetector
mo e e ec or resen
andWorking
SmokeDetectorDisabled
37%
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
32/56
EveryoneThatPurchasedaSmokeAlarmbutDiedAnyway
Non-Working Alarm
Factors
Working Alarm
Factors
37.29%Dead Battery Victim Intimate
with fire
62.7%
Removed due toNuisance alarm
Behavioral /PhysicalFactors
problems Technology Failure(Alarm didnt operate)(Signaled too late)
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
33/56
AdditionalStatementofRecordtoBostonCityCouncil
omm eeon
u c
a e y
rom
on
ugus
,
InNIST'ssmokealarmresearch,andinapplicationsinthefield,itisdocumentedthatmost
commonionization
detectors
have
a
propensity
to
produce
nuisance
alarms
during
cooking
activities.NISTexaminedabroadrangeofactivities(includingcooking)thatyieldnuisance
. .
Specifically,thesensitivitytoalarmthreshold,distancefromthesource,backgroundairflows,
andalarmsensor(photoelectricorionization)wereexamined.Additionalmeasurementswere
madewithaerosolinstrumentationtoprovideamorefundamentalunderstandingofnuisance
alarm sources than has been reviousl ublished. Given the scenarios examined bothphotoelectricandionizationalarmsproducednuisancealarms,butNISTdoesnotmeantoimply
thattheyareequallysusceptibletosuchnuisancealarms.Mostfielddatasuggestthationization
alarmshaveagreaterpropensitytonuisancealarmthanphotoelectricalarms,possiblyindicating
that certain activities such as cookin dominate re orted nuisance alarms in the field.
Here ou can see NIST oes on record that ionization alarmshave greater propensity to nuisance alarm problems.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
34/56
AstudyofAlaskanEskimovillages,publishedin2000,foundthationizationsmokealarmshadasignificantlyhighernumberofnuisancealarmsthanphotoelectric
smokealarms
when
installed
10
to
15
feet
from
anuisance
source.
(Fazzini,
Perkins&Grossman2000)Forthestudy,theresearchersinstalledbothionization
,
livingspace.Thesmokealarmswereinstalledontheceilingbetween10to15feet
fromacookingandtheheatingsources.Thestudyfound92%ofhomeswith
ionizationsmoke
alarms
experienced
nuisance
alarms
compared
with
only11%ofhomeswithphotoelectricsmokealarms,aratioofmore
than8to1.Aftersixmonths,19%oftheinstalledionizationsmoke
alarmshadbeendisconnectedcomparedtoonly4%oftheinstalled
p otoe ectr csmo ea arms,whichhadbatteriesremoved.Theauthorsreportthateventhoughtheionizationsmokealarmshadsilencingorhushbuttonsthat
allowedquietingtheunitfor10minutes,thebatterieswerestillremovedfrom
the unit because of fre uent nuisance alarmin .
(Harborview
Injury
and
Research
Center,
Seattle,
WA,
NIST
Report)
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
35/56
FalseAlarmsandUnwantedActivationsFrom:
U.S.EXPERIENCE
WITH
SMOKE
ALARMS
ANDOTHERFIREDETECTIONAL/ALARMEQUIPMENTBy:MartyAhrens
NationalFireProtectionAssociation
Ionizationdeviceshadadisproportionateshareofnuisancealarms.
oo ngsmo eten stoconta nmoreo t esma erpart c es esst anonemicron)thatactivateanionizationtypedeviceratherthanthelarger
particlesthatactivateaphotoelectrictypedevice. IntheNationalSmoke
,
alarmswereionizationtypedevices.
Mostpeopledonotautomaticallyassumeasoundingsmokealarmisan. ,
andknow
that
they
are
safe.
However,
lives
have
been
lost
when
real
alarmsweremistakenlyconsideredfalse.Unwantedactivationscan
November 2004
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
36/56
TheNationalFireProtectionAssociationcommissionedHarrisInteractiveto
conductthe
Fire
Prevention
Week
Survey.
(Belowareafewofthefinding)
Virtuallyall
Americans
currently
have
a
smoke
alarm
installedintheirhomes.
Fouroutoftenhavehadtheirsmokealarmsgooffin
.
*Fewerthanoneintenthoughtthattheirsmokealarmgoingoff
meantt erewasa reort att ey a togetout.T osew t
childrenaremorelikelythanthosewithouttothinkthis.
* Theactualnumberis8%thoughttherewasafireortheyhadtovacate.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
37/56
MartyAhrens
NationalFireProtectionAssociation
November2004
1/3ofalarmscitedfornuisanceactivationswerelocatedincorrectly.
Nuisancealarmproblemsoftencanbeaddressedbymovingthedevicetoadifferent
.
thedevicesstudiedfornuisancealarmsintheNationalSmokeDetectorProjectwere
reportedlyinlocationsthatmadenuisancealarmsmorelikely,oftenlessthanfivefeetfrom
, , .
ove your a arm or sw c o a p o oe ec r c a arm.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
38/56
EveryoneThatPurchasedaSmokeAlarmbutDiedAnyway
Non-Working Alarm
Factors
Working Alarm
Factors
37.29%Dead Battery Victim Intimatewith fire
62.7%
Removed due toNuisance alarm
Behavioral /PhysicalFactors
problems Technology Failure
(Alarm didnt operate)(Signaled too late)
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
39/56
StatementfortheRecord
National Institute of Standards and Technolo
Tothe
BostonCityCouncilCommitteeonPublicSafety
August6,2007
Insummary,
the
research
conducted
by
NIST
staff
leads
to
the
conclusion
that
bothionizationandphotoelectricalarmsprovideenoughtimetosavelivesfor
,
maynotalwaysalarmevenwhenaroomisfilledwithsmokefromasmoldering
fire, exposingthemostsensitivepopulationswithmobilitylimitationstoan
undeterminedrisk.
Photoelectric
detectors
can
provide
a
lot
more
warning
time
thanionizationdetectorsinasmolderingfire;atthesametimeasmolderingfires
cantakealongerperiodtobecomedangerous.Ionizationdetectorscanprovidea
littlemoretime thanphotoelectricdetectorsinaflamingfire; inthiscasethere
.
thepast
decades
have
reduced
the
time
available
for
safe
egress
in
any
fire.
NIST
is
currentlyconductingresearchtoassesswhetherornotmodificationsmaybe
neededinthestandardtestmethodforcertifyingresidentialsmokealarmsto
accommodatethechangingthreat.
S f h R d
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
40/56
StatementfortheRecord
NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology
Tothe
BostonCity
Council
Committee
on
Public
Safety
August6,2007
owever,ionizationa armsmaynota ways
alarmevenwhenaroomisfilledwithsmoke
romasmo er ng re.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
41/56
TexasA&MStudyRisk
Analysis
of
Residential
Fire
Detector
Performance
Thedevelopmentoftheriskanalysisofferedaclearinsightintowhy
therecontinuestobeahighresidentialdeathrateinspiteof
anincrease
in
the
residences
reported
to
have
smoke
.
Thecurrentthoughtprocessdemonstratedbyfireofficialsintheposition,
thehomewithoutconsiderationastothetypeofpotentialfireignition
thatmostfrequentlyoccursortothequalityofthefiredetector.
Areviewoftheriskanalysisprovidesaclearexampleoftheprobabilityofadetectorfailureifthereisnoconsiderationastotheriskinvolvedwith
.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
42/56
Asillustratedinthearticle,thevarioustypesoffiredetectorsprovidedifferentlevelsofrisk
.
Certaintypesoffiredetectorsaremorereliableforthedifferenttypesoffires,therefore,
recommendationsastothetypeandlocationofthefiredetectorshouldincludethetypeof
fireignitionthatwouldmostlikelyoccurandthemostreliabledetectorthatcanbeinstalled
.
Forexample,
during
asmoldering
ignition
fire,
the
photoelectric
smoke
detector
offered
the
mostreliablemethodofdetectingthefirewhiletheroomoforiginwasstillinatenable
con ition.
Theprobabilityofthefailureofthephotoelectricdetectortodetectasmolderingignition
fireis
4.06%
while
the
ionization
detector
provided
a
55.8%
probability
of
a
failure
in
a
similartypeoffire. Thishighprobabilityofafailureoftheionizationdetectorcanbe
contributedtoanumberoffactorssuchasperformanceundernormalconditionsandan
inabilitytoconsistentlydetectsmolderingsmokeparticles.Thisisaveryimportant
considerationsincemostofthefiresthatoccurinresidencesstartoutassmolderingignition
fires.
Duringaflameignitionfire,thephotoelectricsmokedetectorhada3.99%probabilityofa
thefireis19.8%.
Detection of Smoke:
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
43/56
DetectionofSmoke:
FullScaleTestsWithFlamingandSmouldering Fires
YSTEINMELANDandLARSEINARLNVIKSINTEF
NBL
NorwegianFire
Research
Labaratory
N7034TrondheimNorway
During smoldering fires it is only the optical.
With flaming fires the ionization detectors react before the optical ones. Ifa re were s ar e y a g ow ng c gare e, op ca e ec ors are genera yrecommended.
,
that it is only in extreme cases that this difference between optical andionization detectors would be critical in saving lives.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
44/56
EveryoneThatPurchasedaSmokeAlarmbutDiedAnyway
Non-Working Alarm
Factors
Working Alarm
Factors
37.29%Dead Battery Victim Intimatewith fire
62.7%
Removed due toNuisance alarm
Behavioral /PhysicalFactors
problems Technology Failure
(Alarm didnt operate)(Signaled too late)
Endorsements
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
45/56
Endorsements
on o o uaSensor
uyone
ofeach
IAFF (International AssociationofFire X
F g ters
IAFC (InternationalAssociation
or Fire
Chiefs)X
NFPA (NationalFireProtection
Association)
X
CPSC X
NIST XWorld FireSafetyFoundation X
us ra as an re u or es
Council)
NASFM X X
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
46/56
Dont Just Chan e Your Batteries
Change
Your
Smoke
Detector,
Too
Washington,DC TheInternationalAssociationofFireFighters(IAFF)isurginghouseholdstochange
moret an ustsmo ea arm atter esw enDaylightSavingsTimeendsNovember2.TheIAFF
smokealarm. About
90
percent
of
homes
are
e ui edwithionizationsmokealarms.
Click
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
47/56
TheInternationalAssociationofFireChiefs
ResidentialSmoke
Alarm
Report
(9/80,
excerpt)
TheFire
Chief's
Recommendation
Whatkindofdetectorshouldthefirechiefrecommend ionizationor
photoelectric?Theanswertothisquestion,inthesubcommittee'sopinion,is
.
Itisthesubcommittee'sbeliefthatonlythephotoelectricdetectorwillmeetthe
.
Thesubcommitteebelievesthishasbeenproventimeaftertimethroughoutthe
countryinactualtestsconductedbymanufacturersandfiredepartments(see
AppendixA).
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
48/56
To: Local Fire Service AdministrationFrom: First Alert
Date: July 17, 2008Re: Photoelectric-Specific Legislation
The Vermont State Legislature recently approved Senate Bill 226 requiring photoelectric-type smokealarms to be installed in new and existing single-family homes. This bill was signed by Governor Jim
Douglas on Thursday May 29, 2008 for passage into law. Massachusetts already abides by a state law.pending in Tennessee House Bill 2528 and Senate Bill 2600. Smoke sensing technology type policydiscussions are also being discussed in Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Utah, and California. Clearly there is agrowing consensus within state legislatures as well as the fire service community that favorsphotoelectric technology. First Alert has played a crucial role in a tremendous industry effort to informconsumers on the importance of the home safety technologies; and more specifically the differences
between smoke sensing technologies. In light of recent studies and ongoing industry-performed fieldresearch regarding the comparison of photoelectric and ionization smoke alarms, First Alert is offering thefollowing two scientifically substantiated determinations:
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
49/56
BRK/FirstAlertLetter(continued)
1.Fieldresearchindicatesphotoelectricsmokealarmsexhibitsignificantlyfewernuisancealarmsthanionizationsmokealarms.(12)
2.
To
silence
a
triggered
smoke
alarm,
about
22%
of
consumers
will
remove
the
battery,leavingthealarminoperableandpotentiallyputtingtheresidenceandits
occupantsatriskshouldatruefireoccur. (3)
Consideringphotoelectricsmokealarmsaredeterminedbyindustryexpertstobesignificantlylesspronetonuisancealarmandpotentialdisablingofthebatteriesby
,
movingtowardtheuseofphotoelectricsmokesensingtechnology. Inaddition,FirstAlert
aimstoreassureallpublicsafetyadvocatesthatoursisanorganizationthatactivelysupports
ourconsumersamidstthissafetyrelatedlegislation.
1Cleary,Thomas.ResidentialSmokeAlarmPerformance.BuildingandFireResearchLaboratory,NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology.UL
mo ean re ynam cs em nar. ovem er, .
2Mueller,B.A.Randomizedcontrolledtrialofionizationandphotoelectricsmokealarmfunctionality.InjuryPreventionBMJ,2008;14;8086.
31997FireAwareness/EscapePlanningStudyforNationalFireProtectionAssociation,Quincy,MA,August1997,Tables3&4.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
50/56
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
51/56
AustralasianFireAuthoritiesCouncil
Positionon
Smoke
Alarms
in
Residential
Accommodation
June 1 2006
That
all
residential
accommodation
be
fitted
withphotoelectricsmokealarms.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
52/56
PhotoelectricSmokeAlarms
SenateBillS226,passedandrequiresthatsinglefamily
owneroccupied
homes
have
aphotoelectric
smoke
detector
oneachfloorandoutsideanybedrooms. Combinationz u
asanalternativefortheselocationsbecauseofthefalsealarmsthataremorecommonwithionization.Peopledisarm
.smokedetectorsthathadbeendisabledbytheoccupant.
Thesedetectorsmustbephotoelectriconly.Ionizationcanbeusedinadditiontothephotoelectrics thatarerequired,butmustbeseparate.
TheGovernorofVermontsignedthebillonMay29th,2008attheBarre CityFire
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
53/56
MaineRevisedStatutes
2463A2465 Title25:INTERNALSECURITYANDPUBLICSAFETY
Part6:FIREPREVENTIONANDFIREPROTECTION
Chapter317:PREVENTIVEMEASURESANDRESTRICTIONS
2464.Smokedetectors
" ". . ,
smoke,providesanalarmsuitabletowarntheoccupantswithintheindividualdwellingunit
inwhichitisattachedandthathasbeenlistedforusebyanationallyrecognized
independenttestinglaboratory.
,c. , .
2. Smokedetectorsrequired. Theownershallproperlyinstall,orcausetobeproperlyinstalled,smokedetectorsinaccordancewiththeNationalElectricCodeandthe
manufacturer'srequirements.Insinglefamilydwellings,atleastonesmokedetector,which
maybephotoelectric,ionizationoracombinationofboth,mustbeinstalledineacharea
within,or
giving
access
to,
bedrooms.
These
smoke
detectors
may
be
powered
by
the
electricalserviceinthedwelling,bybatteryorbyacombinationofboth.
containingatuborshowermustbeaphotoelectrictypesmokedetector.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
54/56
CHANGESTOMASSACHUSETTSSMOKEDETECTORLAW:
UNDERSTANDINGTHESTATE'SNEWREGULATIONS
Underthe
new
regulation,
asmoke
detector
utilizing
o ec no og es srequ re na esame
locations,exceptwithin20feetofakitchenora
.
feetofakitchenorbathroomcontainingabathtub
orshower,onlyaphotoelectricsmokedetectoris
allowed.
Anionization
detector
is
prohibited
in
theseplacesduetotheirtendencytobesetoffby
steam.
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
55/56
SESSION2009
H1
The
smoke
detectors
shall
utilize
either
photoelectricordualionizationand
photoelectricsensortechnology
8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010
56/56
DeanandDoug