by Gary Keith
While great improvements have been made in fire safety over the last generation, the one remaining challenge is the place we feel safest – our own homes. This paper will focus on steps being taken by NFPA, working with its constituents and partner advocates, to improve home fire safety in several important areas –contents and furnishings, cooking safety, smoke alarm technology, public education and home fire sprinklers.
First, a look at the numbers…in the U.S., we have seen an overall positive trend during the last 30 years. In 1980, our fire loss in homes was 734,000 fires and 5200 deaths. By 2009, we have been able to reduce the fire loss in homes to 363,000 fires and 2600 deaths. But, we have essentially reached a plateau over the last 20 years – and none of us dedicated to fire safety are satisfied that the current loss results are “acceptable” or “good enough.”
The bottom line is that, on a percentage basis, homes represent the leading loss category for fire deaths, fire property damage, fire injuries and one category we don’t think about often enough, fire fighter deaths in structures.
By the way, a sampling of the fire death statistics in six other countries around the world show similar results – a range of 64% to 89% of fire deaths occur in homes.
Homes are the international fire problem…a problem we all share.
Next, let’s take a look at the causes of home fires. In the U.S., the leading causes are different, depending upon the loss category– most of you are probably aware of that.
The leading cause of civilian fire deaths is smoking materials, at about 25% of fatal fires. For total fires and for civilian fire injuries, the leading cause is cooking equipment – 42% for total fires and 37% for fire injuries. And for property damage, the leading cause is heating equipment at13%.
So, obviously any effort to move from our plateau has to involve a strategy of addressing all of these areas. Let me bring you up to date on what NFPA is doing to support this effort.
First, smoking materials…NFPA coordinated the Fire-Safe Cigarette Coalition, which advocated for the statewide adoption of the ASTM reduced ignition propensity cigarette standard. This standard is intended to reduce the ignition potential of cigarettes when placed on bedding and upholstered furniture. We moved the effort for adopting this standard to a state- by-state campaign after many years without success in the U.S. Congress at the federal level.
With the enthusiastic support of the fire service, public health, consumer, and other safety advocates, the campaign moved ahead far more quickly than any of us could have imagined and we completed our goal to get all 50 states to adopt fire-safe cigarette legislation in less than five years.
While it may be too soon to see the ultimate results of this effort because of the limited time the standard has been in effect in some states, we were encouraged by an early 21% reduction in fire deaths during the period from 2003 when no state legislation was in place to 2010 when 66-77% of smokers were in states covered by fire-safe cigarette legislation.We expect to see at least a 30% reduction in fire deaths by the time a full year of implementation is in place in all 50 states.
Connected with the issue of smoking materials is the issue of flammability of upholstered furniture. This is also one area where the fire safety solution of flame retardant chemicals is causing obvious concern from an environmental perspective.
Currently, most of the regulated community in the U.S. actually adheres to a standard that originates in California. This standard requires an open-flame ignition test and satisfactory performance up until this point has usually been achieved through the use of retardants. California has announced a planned change to a new standard by July 2013. The draft of the new standard calls for replacing the open-flame ignition test with a smoldering test and it is anticipated that retardant chemicals will not be necessary.
In parallel with the California effort, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is looking at options for issuing a federal regulation, but at this time it is not known exactly what their testing parameters or time frame will be.
Clearly, trying to chase after the anticipated fire hazards for all contents in the home becomes difficult. And, since it can be said that the actual three leading causes of fire in the home are men, women and children, our emphasis on public education must be on- going and effective.
Public education is certainly one of the key reasons we have seen improved fire loss results over the last 30 years. But, on-going challenges for resources within the fire service – both personnel and educational materials–make it difficult to maintain the needed level of community outreach.
While NFPA is obviously not able to address the issue of fire service personnel devoted toward fire prevention and public education, we can address the issue of educational resources. At NFPA, we have transitioned our public education efforts over the last five years from what was previously a product-based, end- user consumer program to one that is an Internet-based program developed for use by our primary constituent – the fire service. We recognized that the fire service is in a better position than we are to provide direct public education services to end-user consumers. The role of NFPA should be to provide suitable, credible messaging tools at little or no cost to the fire service – and that is what we are doing.
Next on our list are smoke alarms. Along with public education, clearly the expanded use of smoke alarms in homes has been the other major contributor to the improved fire loss results over the last 30 years. But, two major hurdles remain…the lack of working smoke alarms and a continuing debate over smoke alarm technology.
Smoke alarms have become such a common feature in U.S. homes that it is easy to take them for granted. News reports often describe fires in which smoke alarms alerted sleeping occupants to danger. These devices also alert countless others to fires in the incipient stage. Our surveys have found that almost all households in the U.S. have at least one smoke alarm.
So, what’s the problem? Well, between 2005-2009, smoke alarms were present in less than three-quarters (72%) of all reported home fires and operated in only half (51%) of the reported home fires. More than one-third (38%) of all home fire deaths resulted from fires in homes with no smoke alarms, while one-quarter (24%) resulted from fires in homes in which smoke alarms were present but did not operate. The death rate per 100 reported fires was twice as high in homes without a working smoke alarm as it was in home fires with a working smoke alarm.
The point here is that our public education messages about maintaining smoke alarms must be prominent and continuous.
But, there’s one other smoke alarm message that causes confusion for the consumer… what type of smoke alarm do they choose? And it’s this issue, one for which there is on-going debate even within a knowledgeable fire protection community, which leads to consumer confusion.
When was the last time you stood in front of the smoke alarm display at any major retail outlet? Here are just a few of the categories… kitchen (usually meaning photoelectric), bedroom (usually meaning ionization), dual detection, battery-operated, hard- wired with battery backup, long-life battery operated, smoke alarms with escape lights, smoke alarms with carbon monoxide detection… it’s bewildering for anyone who understands what the descriptions mean, never mind for the general consumer. And, we wonder why smoke alarms end up not being installed in the proper location or end up in the unfortunate category of “not working” should a fire occur.
NFPA’s position is simple, but admittedly, perhaps is still not clear enough for the consumer. Our codes and standards allow for the use of either ionization and photoelectric technologies. Our advocacy position, though, is that both technologies should be used in the home. But, we come up short with recommending that combination, or dual ionization/ photoelectric smoke alarms should be used. So, does that mean some undetermined mixing within the home of smoke alarms with either technology is ok? There’s a good saying when something becomes more complicated than it should be…”my hair hurts”…I think it fits here.
My hope is that the “next generation” devices (whenever they arrive) will utilize whatever technology is appropriate to alert for fast flaming fires, for smoldering fires and for high levels of carbon monoxide…we need it all in one device.
Until then, the prominent and continuous message to the public should be install and maintain working smoke alarms on all levels of the home, in bedrooms and outside sleeping areas.
I’m going to finish on the topic within residential fire safety thatI feel is the most important –residential fire sprinklers. This is the one thing that, if we start now in all new construction, has the potential to move us off of the fire loss plateau that we’ve been stuck on for the last 20 years. And, that’s particularly true when you consider the enhanced protection from sprinklers for the groups at the highest risk in a fire – young children, older adults and people with disabilities – all of whom might have difficulty escaping a fire even with working smoke alarms.
Certainly, there are residential occupancies such as high-rise buildings, where we believe sprinklers should be retrofitted. We think that should be the case for all high-rise buildings, but particularly for residential high-rise.
But, if we look at the residential fire loss data further for the U.S., the fire problem really becomes focused on one- and two-family dwellings. Mandating sprinkler retrofits for existing dwellings is just not practical…although it certainly can be done voluntarily as I did in my own home. But, we can draw a line in the sand that says, if you build it, sprinkler it…and that’s just what we have done.
In the U.S., all national model codes currently developed by NFPA and by the International Code Council now require sprinklers in all new home construction. The tough part is getting the states to adopt the model code with the residential sprinkler provision intact. As of January 2012, two states have done that…California and Maryland.
To support this adoption effort, NFPA launched the Fire Sprinkler Initiative. When we announced this initiative, we knew that we were beginning a tough battle that would take a massive effort by us, the fire service, and other advocates over several years.
But we also knew that the payoff in lives saved, firefighter safety, and property protection would justify that commitment.
Because of the severe economic problems we have faced over the last few years, home building has stalled, but when the economy turns around, the pent-up demand for housing will likely lead to millions of homes being built in the coming years. If we can begin to make progress in our campaign, it will help educate the public about sprinkler affordability and effectiveness. It will also demystify sprinkler technology, and will rebut the unfounded arguments that have stood in the way of sprinkler use.
But a threat to this campaign immediately emerged from aformidable opponent – homebuilders. Unlike the Fire-Safe Cigarette Campaign, where a one-time powerful opponent, the tobacco industry, actually became a supporter of a uniform standard, the home builders have lobbied extensively both in time and money to oppose residential sprinklers. Home builders in 19 states have found sponsors for legislation that prevents communities from adopting residential sprinkler requirements. This brazen tactic is unprecedented in our history of developing safety codes, and it is essential that we do all we can to prevent this special interest from succeeding in other states.
The fire service in particular should be concerned, because if the home builders succeed, this tactic
will be used again by other interest groups to prevent advances in staffing, equipment improvements, and other resources achieved through code adoptions. NFPA is aggressively fighting these dangerous proposals. We have succeeded in knocking down efforts to block residential sprinklers in 21 states, but our opponents won’t quit.
In partnership with FM Global, we recently proved another important advantage for residential sprinklers– one that should get more attention as we focus on “green” technologies – the effectiveness of residential sprinklers in protecting the environment –including reduced water usage, less hazardous water runoff, less air pollutants discharged to the atmosphere and less debris sent to landfills.
Our data analysis shows just how effective sprinklers could be.During 2006-2010, if all reported home structure fires per year in the U.S. had been sprinklered, we would have seen the following results:
- Fire deaths reduced by 83%.
- Property damage reduced by 69% means a savings of $14,000 per reported fire per year, which means $4.8 billion a year.
- Civilian fire injury medical costs reduced by 48% means a savings of $85,000 per 100 reported fires per year, which means $0.3 billion a year.
- Civilian fire injury total costs reduced by 40% means a savings of $442,000 per 100 reported fires per year, which means $1.5 billion a year.
- And, not forgetting our objective of firefighter safety in home fires, we would have seen a 65% reduction in firefighter injuries as well.
In every occupancy you can think of, we have historically seen a reduction in fire losses as model code thresholds for requiring sprinklers expanded. What started strictly for property conservation has proven that it is extremely effective at fire death and injury reduction as well.
Are sprinklers a panacea? Obviously not…fire protection will always be a system approach and will need to include prevention, construction and detection. But, sprinklers have demonstrated their ability to be tremendously forgiving when significant shortcomings occur in these other areas. And, it’s time we expand that level of protection to homes…and protect what we value most.
Thank you very much for your attention and for your hospitality during this conference. It has been my honor to represent NFPA in front of you today.
Note: This article is a paper presented during the IFCEM 2012 Conference.
Courtesy of Gary Keith is NFPA’s Vice President, Field Operations, overseeing six divisions within the organization: Regional Operations, International Operations, Fire Analysis & Research, Public Education, Wildland Fire Operations and Government Affairs.