SMOKE DETECTOR PLACEMENT AND OPERABILITY IN THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT. Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction

SMOKE DETECTOR PLACEMENT AND OPERABILITY IN THE LOCAL ENVIRONMENT Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction BY: Wade A. Warling El Paso Fire Department El Paso, Texas An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy as part of the Executive Fire Officer Program November 2000

2 ABSTRACT The El Paso Fire Department Fire Prevention Division, in January of 1999, assigned the officers responsible for each of its sections the task of determining what projects should be targeted for future resource allocation within the division. Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca of the Public Education Section submitted a report about smoke detector performance. The information has not been further analyzed or acted upon by the fire department, creating the problem prompting this research project. The purpose of this research was to reexamine the information included in the smoke detector performance report with added information for the subsequent year. The examination was to be combined with nationally published material to determine trends in placement of smoke detectors in residences and maintenance after placement. The historical research method was used. The research questions were 1. What national trends in smoke detector dispersion and performance are to be found in published material? 2. What trends can be recognized in the available local data on smoke detector use and reliability in residential occupancies? 3. How do local trends compare with national trends regarding residential smoke detectors? 4. What methods can be used to increase smoke detector effectiveness in the local environment? A literature review was conducted. The Texas version of the National Fire Incident Reporting System was searched to obtain local information. Several interviews were held with Lieutenant Apodaca.

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 List of Tables 3 Introduction 4 Background and Significance 5 Literature Review 9 Interviews 18 Procedures 19 Limitations 20 Results 21 Discussion 30 Recommendations 33 References 36 APPENDIX Appendix A Questions for Interview With Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca, Public Education Division TABLES Table 1 Summary of Smoke Detector Code Entries 1991-1999 25 Table 2 Smoke Detector Code Percentages 26

4 INTRODUCTION In January of 1999 the Fire Marshal for the El Paso Fire Department requested the officers in the Fire Prevention Division to prioritize their section work assignments to allocate time and resources in a more efficient manner. Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca of the public education section submitted a report on smoke detector performance. The report focused on the relationship between operational smoke detectors and dollar loss in residential occupancies during the period including the years 1991 to 1998. Smoke detectors have been generally available for residential use since the 1970s. Efforts to convince the public to obtain smoke detectors for their homes have taken many forms. National campaigns by insurance companies, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and other safety groups have aided local efforts to educate the public about the benefits of smoke detectors. Changes in building and safety codes have increased the number of residences equipped with smoke detector protection. Business contributions and fund raising efforts by civic groups have made it possible for economically disadvantaged households to be provided with smoke detectors at no cost. All of these contributions have resulted in a steady increase in the number of homes with smoke detectors. During the 1980s a new concern arose from observations at both local and national levels. More smoke detectors were in place in residential locations. A growing number of the detectors were not operating during fires. The general public had either not been educated about smoke detector placement, installation and maintenance or were disabling the detectors for various reasons. National studies were conducted in the early part of the decade but no local studies were produced.

5 Prior to the report submitted by Lieutenant Apodaca no local compilation of data had been done in El Paso, Texas about smoke detector presence or performance in residential properties. The report did not reference national information about trends in placement or maintenance of smoke detectors. The problem causing this research was a need for an examination of published information on smoke detector use and an updated examination of locally available data. The purpose of the research was to determine if national trends for smoke detector protection could be recognized in local information. Additionally, local data was evaluated for significant variation from national trends. The historical research method was used to accomplish the purpose. The following research questions were posed 1. What national trends in smoke detector dispersion and performance in residential occupancies are to be found in published material? 2. What trends can be recognized in available local data on smoke detector use and reliability in residential occupancies? 3. How do local trends compare with national trends regarding residential smoke detectors? 4. What methods can be used to increase smoke detector effectiveness in the local environment? BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE The City of El Paso is located at the far western edge of the state of Texas. The southern city limit is the Rio Grande and the international border between the United States and Mexico. The northern city limit is the state boundary between Texas and

6 New Mexico in one area and the southern edge of Fort Bliss, a United States Army installation, in another area. The nearest city of size in this country is Las Cruces, New Mexico, approximately 40 miles to the northwest. The closest city of size in Texas is Odessa, some 300 miles to the east. The largest neighbor is Ciudad Juarez in Mexico, a city estimated to have a population of 1,600,000 people. El Paso includes 250 square miles within the city limits. The population is estimated at 627,556 people by the city planning department. It is a sizeable community geographically out of position to ally itself with other communities on this side of the international border. The El Paso Fire Department is a municipal department with 726 uniformed personnel. The largest division is the suppression division with nearly 675 people. Fire department facilities include 28 stations, the training academy and a headquarters complex with attached vehicle maintenance and repair area. The suppression division includes 30 pumper companies, five quint companies, seven ladder companies, a manpower squad, six airport units and six command units. The fire department responded to 56,844 incidents in 1999, including 32,258 medical emergencies. A separate city Emergency Medical Services department was incorporated into the fire department early in the year 2000. The fire department operates with a budget determined by city council. The council and the mayor have indicated on numerous occasions their desire to consolidate services to reduce spending wherever possible. A study of city operations for inefficiency and opportunities for improvement was commissioned in

7 1995. The study was awarded to K.P.M. Peat Marwick, a management-consulting firm. The completed efficiency study recommended consolidation of all law enforcement functions within the police department. This recommendation included the Fire Marshal's office. Consequently, the enforcement unit, investigation unit and the Fire Marshal position in the fire department were either discontinued or transferred to the police department in September of 1997. The public education section was reduced to four people and all personnel were replaced with new employees. A portion of the consequences of this restructuring was a loss of many records and documentation of programs from the previous fire department division. (S. Apodaca, personal communication, November 12, 2000) The Fire Marshal position was reinstated in June 1998. The actual title was changed to Deputy Chief in charge of the fire prevention division. Personnel were assigned to the division to serve in the investigation and enforcement sections but no additions were made to the public education section. The new Deputy Chief, Stan Roberts, asked for reports on prioritization of work resources from the several sections in his division. Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca of the public education division submitted a report on smoke detector performance. The intent of the report was to illustrate a need for additional emphasis on smoke detector presence in residential occupancies and maintenance of existing smoke detectors. The El Paso Fire Department has instituted several programs intended to inform the public about the importance of smoke detectors. These began in the middle of

8 the 1970s. One of the efforts was a smoke detector giveaway sponsored by private and corporate donations. This program continues to the present with the detectors being installed by fire companies in the neighborhood. A problem associated with the giveaway program was the lack of records prior to the reinstating of the full fire prevention division. The prevention division was relocated from central fire station to a new headquarters building in 1998. Some documents were lost or discarded during the moving process. It is not known who received the detectors. No follow up was done to find out if the recipients were performing maintenance on the detectors until 2000. The follow up was restricted to the detectors placed after 1995. This research paper was prepared as a part of the requirements for the National Fire Academy course Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction. The course has an emphasis on utilizing education, engineering and enforcement methods to reduce the risk of injury and death in the community. The analysis of information to determine the size of a problem and the role the fire service can play in reducing it was an integral part of the curriculum. This document will examine available information and offer suggestions for reducing community risk. An updated summary of smoke detector presence and performance was performed. The magnitude of the lack of working smoke detectors in the local community was assessed and reported. Suggestions were included for opportunities to reduce the community risk. Nationally published information was obtained and included. This research can provide justification for efforts to increase the presence of smoke detector protection in the local community.

9 LITERATURE REVIEW Smoke detectors came into general residential use in the decade following 1970. Fire was the third largest cause of accidental death in the United States. Seventy to 80% of fire deaths occur in the home. Fifty percent of these deaths happen in bedrooms with no smoke detector protection. Smoke detectors provide a warning in time to evacuate the building on fire. They are the first line of defense against hostile fire. (Spiteri, 2000) A 21% drop in fire deaths between 1978 and 1982 is partially attributed to the use of smoke detectors. (Cooper, 1886) Working smoke detectors reduce the risk of death from home fires by more than half. Deaths in apartments, town homes and condominiums are reduced by 14% based on fire data for the period 1983 through 1992. (Hall, 1994) Home fires are particularly dangerous during the evening and nighttime hours. According to the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) a smoke detector was the first warning of a fire at night in 60% of cases. The NFPA stated that over 60% of overnight fatalities occur when a fire is not discovered for more than 20 minutes. (McClintock, 1987) Reference to a number of studies was made in the available literature. Several were national in scope with a few more localized studies offering some insight. NFPA did an analysis of the status of smoke detectors for a period including 1980 to 1983. (Hall, 1988) The National Smoke Detector Project was accomplished as a joint effort between the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Congressional Fire Services Institute, the United States Fire Administration and NFPA. This was a

10 comprehensive look at smoke detectors completed in 1992 and published in 1993 (Hopkins, 1994) The National Smoke Detector Project was instituted for the purpose of decreasing residential fire deaths by increasing the number of working smoke detectors. It actually included two studies. One was the study of the causes of detector failure during fires. The other was a study of detector operation in the general population where no fire occurred. (Smith, 1997) Published studies with a focus on home detectors seem to follow two types of data, performance in fires and operational status in homes in general. (Hall, 1988) The NFPA analysis in 1983 precluded that the best evaluation of the status of smoke detectors was a percentage of the activations of those fires deemed large enough to activate an operational detector. The information was taken from the National Fire Incident Reporting System. Smoke spread was the measure of fire size due to the prevalence of smoke detectors. (Hall, 1988) Information on two more localized studies was found in the literature. A study in Woodlands, Texas examined the problem of nuisance alarms in an automated remote residential alarm system. (Hall, 1988) Another study, done outside the United States in England, followed 10,000 smoke alarms from installation to the end of a 36 -month evaluation. (Marriott, 1995) The English study took place in Manchester County. Government employees installed 10,000 smoke detectors were installed in homes. Five thousand of the detectors were optical design and 5,000 were ionization type. All of the homes were surveyed by visitation at 18 months and at 36 months. (Marriott, 1995)

11 Published articles on smoke detectors cited information from studies accomplished from the early 1980s to the middle 1990s. Several were examined for evidence of changes in the findings. Some of the information contained the general status of detectors. Other studies had more specific data on the probable causes for the outcomes. Local and national studies before 1987 showed 1/4 to 1/3 of detectors to be inoperable. Seventy five percent of homes had smoke detectors. Twenty five percent of homes had more than one. The residential category included homes, hotels, manufactured housing and dormitories. The figures differed by one percent from homes alone. (Hall, 1988) In 1982 16% of residential alarms were tested as often as once per month. (Hall, 1994) A 1983 study found that 69% of the detectors not operating in fires failed due to power problems. The majority of the rest were caused by a human factor. Twelve percent were incorrectly installed. Eleven percent were in the wrong location. Others were in dead air space, too low on a wall, too close to an air return or without a cover. (Hall, 1994) The National Smoke Detector Project was the definitive study during the 1990s. Completed in 1992, it examined placement and performance of smoke detectors across the country. Ninety two percent of the general population had at least one smoke detector in the residence. (Hall, 1994) Forty one percent had more than one detector. Thirteen percent had more than two detectors. Seventy one percent of the detectors were battery operated. Twenty six percent of the detectors were hard wired to building electricity. Two percent of the detectors were a combination hard

12 wire with a battery backup. Ionization type detectors were found in 76% of the homes with detectors. (Hopkins, 1994) This study also included data on detector operation both in the general population and in reported fires. (Hall, 1994) The examination of the operation of detectors in the general populace found 20% to be inoperable. The majority of the inoperable detectors had a power source problem. (Hall, 1994) Of those with power source problems 93% were battery operated. Eleven percent had a missing battery. Five percent of the batteries were dead and 3% were disconnected. (Hall, 1994) Eighty seven percent of the detectors found in homes were of the ionization type. Detectors were tested with the test button, followed by aerosol smoke. (Smith, 1997) Homes without detectors have nearly half of home fires. (Hall, 1994) Operation of smoke detectors in reported fires was investigated in 15 United States cities over 11 months ending in February 1993. Smoke alarms failed to operate in 32% of fires large enough to set them off. (Smith, 1997) Of all detectors in fires 81% were battery operated and 89% were of the ionization type. Xeventy eight percent of the battery operated detectors and 37% of the hard-wired detectors that failed in fire conditions had no functioning power source. (Smith, 1997) The study done in Manchester, England had a more controlled situation than most done in the United States. All of the detectors were placed in the same manner. Of the detectors in the study 93% operated when the test button was pushed after 18 months. Eighty nine percent worked after three years. The inoperable detectors included 51% with the alarm broken, 19% with a dead battery, 11% were missing the battery and 19% were from other causes. (Marriott, 1995)

13 Most of the comprehensive studies investigated the reasons for detector failure to some degree. Examination of maintenance patterns revealed trends during the 1980s. The increasing numbers of neglected detectors led investigators to believe the 1/4 to 1/3 of detectors not operational in the 1980s would grow to 1/2 by the mid 1990s. Power source problems were the leading reason for failure. (Hall, 1988) In the general population 60% of detectors that failed for power reasons were due to missing or disconnected power sources. In homes having fires 59% were due to missing power. (Smith, 1997) Responses differed slightly between the general population and homes where fires occurred for the lack of power to the detectors. In homes with fires 35% said nuisance alarms were the reason for disconnection. The general population was more likely to blame the disconnection on a failure to perform maintenance. (Smith, 1997) Batteries were removed eight times more for nuisance alarms than to use the battery elsewhere. (Hall, 1994) Only 4% removed the battery for other uses. Low battery signals were often interpreted as additional nuisance alarms. (Hopkins, 1994) Nuisance alarms are a problem because they can generate a dangerous sense of complacency. (Ahrens, 1998) The National Smoke detector project identified the most common thoughts of occupants upon hearing a smoke detector. Eleven percent were annoyed, thinking it was another nuisance alarm. Ten percent were unconcerned, believing they already knew the cause. Nine percent wondered how to turn it off. Eight percent blamed a low battery. Seven percent thought it was a fire and thought they should leave. Four percent wondered what the sound was. Three

14 percent noted that the detector worked. Two percent thought they should have installed an exhaust fan. (Ahrens, 1998) An NFPA study done in 1997 found that 39% of respondents with detectors had at least one nuisance alarm in 12 months. 73% of these activations were from cooking fumes and 16.3% were low battery chirping. (Ahrens, 1998) A study of Veterans Administration hospitals found 15.8 nuisance alarms for every real alarm. (Hall, 1994) Education and changes in alarm design may be the solution for nuisance alarms. The general population identified several reasons for the alarm functioning. Twenty eight percent said the alarm went off while cooking. Twenty seven percent sounded continuously when powered. Twenty one percent alarmed for unspecified reasons. Steam and cigarette smoke were blamed for 10% and 5% of the nuisance alarms. (Smith, 1997) One third of nuisance producing alarms were found to be located less than five feet from potential sources of steam smoke or moisture. Ninety seven percent were ionization type detectors. Particles associated with cooking smoke are small enough to activate ionization type detectors. Photo activated alarms generally need a larger particle. (Hall, 1994) Greater use of photoelectric alarms in cooking areas might reduce nuisance alarms. (Smith, 1997) Ionization type detectors respond best to fast flaming fires with more heat and less smoke. Ninety percent of fires are in this classification. (Spiteri, 2000) A study done in England reported that alarms sounded continuously after replacing batteries when dirt or other foreign matter within the detector was

15 disturbed during battery replacement. (Marriott, 1995) The Woodlands, Texas study reported 27 nuisance alarms for every real alarm. (Hall, 1988) Other causes for nonfunctioning of detectors were clogging with dust, improper installation and age. (McClintock, 1987) Thirty six percent of the problem detectors failed due to improper installation. (Hall, 1988) A detector that is clogged with debris still works when the test button is pushed. The best method for testing is to utilize an aerosol smoke product. (Cooper, 1996) Failure percentages climb steadily as detectors get older. Detectors fail 1.7% to 3.4% during the first year. After ten years the failure percentage is 16.1% to 29.6%. At 20 years up to 50% failure can be expected. (Cooper, 1986) The current recommended replacement age is 10 years. (Hall, 1994) Proper maintenance can reduce the number of detector failures. Attempts to simplify detector maintenance have recommended pushing the test button once per month and changing the battery once or twice each year. (McClintock, 1987) In 1982 16% of occupants reported testing their detector at least once a month. Over 50% were doing monthly testing in 1993 surveys. (Hall, 1994) Detectors that are not tested were found to be out of service 898 weeks over 30 years. Those tested once each year were inoperable 43 weeks of the same time period. Testing once each week resulted in 3.8 weeks of failure in 30 years. (Cooper, 1986) Smoke detector maintenance training can reduce the number of failures even lower. Owners have experienced some difficulty with testing for several reasons. Ceiling mounted detectors may be too high and require the extra effort to use a chair or other device. Some older detectors do not have test buttons. The use of a

16 broomstick can damage the detector and some have button recesses too small for a broomstick. Wall mounted units may not allow use of a broomstick at all. (Cooper, 1996) Regular testing and battery replacement are not the only maintenance tasks. The study completed in Manchester, England included questioning about detector care. Reports from 70% of the occupants said they cleaned their alarms. However, less than 1% had followed instructions for lightly vacuuming the alarm. Faulty optical alarms returned to the manufacturer were found to have a buildup of dust inside. Disturbing the dust when replacing batteries caused a constant alarm buzzing. (Marriott, 1995) Several strategies are offered to reduce the incidence of smoke detector failure. The first item would be the choice of the correct detector for the application. Ionization and photoelectric type detectors might better protect households if both were used in the proper situation. ( Spiteri, 2000) Photoelectric detectors are best for smoldering fires generating a volume of smoke but little heat. They are less likely to produce nuisance alarms. This type is a good choice for areas near cooking activity. (Spiteri, 2000) Ionization type detectors are more sensitive to higher heat producing fires with little smoke production. (Spiteri, 2000) Proper installation and location of detectors follows the correct choice of detector. NFPA recommended a smoke detector in every room. These should be placed on the ceiling four inches from the wall (Ahrens, 1998) or on the wall 4 to 12 inches from the ceiling. (Ahrens, 1998) They should be six inches away from corners to avoid dead spaces. Detectors should not be placed directly in the garage or kitchen where temperatures may go above 38 degrees Centigrade or below 4 degrees

17 centigrade. Three feet should separate detectors from kitchens or bathrooms where steam may be a problem. Air supplies from forced air heating or cooling should be avoided. (Spiteri, 2000) Maintenance is the key to detector performance after installation. There are slight differences in maintenance for different varieties. Battery operated smoke detectors should be tested once each week. Hard-wired detectors should be tested once every month. (Cooper, 1996) Normal batteries should be changed twice every year. A tool for remembering replacement is to change the battery when the clock is changed for daylight savings time. Lithium batteries are available with as much as a 10-year lifespan. It is recommended that the entire detector be replaced at 10-year intervals. (Spiteri, 2000) The fire service and the media need to educate the public about the need for having smoke detectors and about their testing and maintenance. (Hall, 1988) Education is among the most valuable tools to reduce the loss of life and property. (Spiteri, 2000) Additionally, people need to know what to do if the detector fails when tested. (Cooper, 1996) The education effort can have as great of an influence in encouragement to maintain detectors as in obtaining them where there are none. (Hall, 1988) Several of the studies have indicated that homes where fires occur are more likely not to have smoke detectors. Detector use for all population groups are higher than in homes that have fires. (Hall, 1994) Many homes have too few detectors. One per floor is the minimum recommended. The optimum of one in each room would provide a backup alarm should one fail. (Smith, 1997) The smoke detector project in

18 Manchester, England found that in most cases where alarms failed to operate during a fire a closed door blocked the detectors. (Marriott, 1995) Fire and building code changes have had an impact on increasing the number of detectors in residential occupancies. Manufactured homes have been required to have hard wired smoke detectors since 1976. Many other homes have been provided with hard wired smoke detectors since 1980 due to codes like NFPA 101. (Hall, 1994) The Life Safety Code also requires retrofitting of multiple unit residential property with smoke detectors. (Hall, 1994) Technical advancements have improved smoke detectors for residential use in several areas. A silencer button is available on some detectors to reduce nuisance alarms. The button silences the alarm for up to three minutes. Should the smoke be too dense the alarm will continue to sound until the smoke clears. (Ahrens, 1998) Nuisance alarm reduction will reduce deactivation and assumptions that all detector alarms are nuisance alarms. (Hall, 1988) Installing detectors with a 10-year life or installing batteries with a 10-year lifespan may increase the level of detector operability. (Smith, 1997) Interviews Several interviews were held with Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca of the El Paso Fire Department public education division. The first interview was primary reason for the subject of this research. The Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction course at the National Fire Academy required a topic for research related to community risk. Lieutenant Apodaca was asked for topic suggestions in May 2000. The report on smoke detector performance was the first suggestion made. Other

19 interviews were held in July and October of 2000. The July interview was informal and consisted of questions about the data gathering for the report submitted by Lieutenant Apodaca. The interview in October was more structured. A copy of the questions prepared for that interview can be found in Appendix A. This interview provided information on the history of the problem and current activity in the fire prevention division. Other short interviews consisting of one or two questions were held with various individuals. Deputy Chief Stan Roberts offered some history of the fire prevention division. Lieutenant Michael Fogelman assisted with obtaining data from the department computer system. James Fraser, an urban planner with the department of planning, research and development was very helpful in providing demographic information and interpreting 1990 census profiles. PROCEDURES The research procedure used in preparing this paper included a literature review accomplished at the Learning Resource Center at the National Fire Academy in May and June of 2000. Further literature review was accomplished in El Paso, Texas and in the author's personal library between June and October 2000. Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca of the El Paso Fire Department fire prevention division was interviewed about his report on smoke detector performance in El Paso, Texas and the events leading to its compilation. Deputy Chief Stan Roberts aided this effort with some historical background on the fire prevention division. Lieutenant Michael Fogelman assisted with technical advice on the fire department computer system.

20 Lieutenant Apodaca's smoke detector performance report on residential occupancies was used as a base for examining local computer data. The Fire Management Information System utilized by the El Paso Fire Department was utilized to access stored information from the Texas Fire Information Recording System, a state version of the National Fire Information Recording System. James E. Fraser with the El Paso City department of planning provided 1990 census reports and assistance interpreting the data. Projected population figures were obtained from planning department information. The fire department computer data was queried for fire information for 1999. Census documents were examined to find population information and language data. The results were entered into a computerized spreadsheet for comparison. Statistical tools in the spreadsheet were used to accomplish the results. Limitations The local smoke detector data collected for this research came from the El Paso Fire Department computer records. The Texas Fire Incident Recording System is the format used by the department. Computer records were not kept prior to 1991. Information for a full ten-year period was not available. A more comprehensive study should have been done including the 1970s and 1980s. The information was not available. The primary reason for having smoke detectors in a home is to reduce the probability of injury or death from fire. The information used by Lieutenant Apodaca for his smoke detector performance report primarily dealt with the associated property losses. The reason for this was a problem with data entry into the system.

21 His investigation showed several injuries and deaths during the period were not recorded as fire related. They were entered into the system as Emergency Medical System calls. Examination of the record for every single fire department response included an eight-year period was not within the scope of his report. The same examination is not within the scope of this research. The impact of this data entry problem would make injury and death comparisons incomplete enough to be useless. This research will examine the data from the computer on smoke detector presence for general comparison and evidence of trends only. A full statistical analysis will not be attempted. Nine years worth of data was available and will be the time period included in this document. Public Education efforts by the El Paso fire prevention division were described in personal interviews. No records were available on the programs offered by this group prior to 1997 except some incomplete public presentation forms. While the information provided was enlightening, it could not provide a complete picture. Smoke detector donation program records either were not compiled or were destroyed during the relocation of the prevention division offices. The smoke detector follow up data represents a four year period from a program that has been in existence since the early 1980s. None of the people directly involved in the inception of the program were available for interviews. RESULTS 1. What national trends in smoke detector dispersion and performance are to be found in published material?

22 A number of trends could be recognized in published information. The years from 1975 to 1984 were a large growth period for the use of home smoke detectors. After 1984 the growth slowed but remained steady. (Hall, 1994) A 21% drop in residential fire deaths between 1978 and 1982 is partially attributed to the use of smoke detectors in homes. (Cooper, 1986) Two types of study were prevalent prior to 1987. One was performance during fires. The other was operational status in homes in general. (Hall, 1988) Owners who tested their detectors comprised 48% of the people with detectors in 1977. This group had reduced to 40% by 1987. (McClintock, 1987) Studies in the early 1980s found 1/4 to 1/3 of home fire detectors to be inoperable. Due to a trend toward less maintenance being performed, the number was expected to grow to 1/2 by 1994. (Hall, 1988) In 1984 the percentage of operational detectors was essentially the same in fire-involved homes as in the general populace. (Hall, 1988) Studies in 1987 found 25% of all homes to be without smoke detectors. The 75% having detectors produced 1/3 that were not operational. (Hall, 1988) In 1982 only 16% of detector owners were testing their detectors at least once per month. (Hall, 1994) The growth in the number of households with detectors has sustained itself. As of 1992 88% of homes had at least one detector. By 1994 the number had risen to 93%. (Smith, 1997) The trend toward low operability of existing detectors reversed itself. (Hall, 1994) Alarm testing once per month increased to 50% by 1993. (Hall, 1994) The National Smoke Detector Project in 1992 found 20% of existing detectors to be inoperable. (Hall, 1994) This still remains a problem to the extent that restoring

23 nonworking detectors would have as much impact as placing them in homes without them. (Hall, 1988) One aspect of smoke detector operation has had a negative trend. Homes with no detector protection have nearly half of the fires. (Hall, 1994) This group at risk for fires crosses all economic, ethnic and racial categories. Detector use for all population groups is far higher than in homes that have fires. (Hall, 1994) There are at least two theories offered for this occurrence. One is that households that have fires are the kind less likely to purchase smoke detectors. (Hall, 1988) They have a lower concern for fire safety. (Ahrens, 1998) Another theory holds that homes with detectors have a higher percentage of their fires controlled quickly by the occupant without calling authorities. (Ahrens, 1998) Power source difficulties have remained a large part of the failure picture. A 1983 study found 69% of nonworking smoke detectors to be so due to power problems. (Hall, 1994) The national study performed in 1992 found 60% of failed detectors to have missing or disconnected power sources. The response from occupants was divided. 1/3 of all respondents blamed nuisance alarms for the disconnection. Another group admitted to failing to do proper maintenance (Smith, 1997) 2. What trends can be recognized in available local data on smoke detector use and reliability? The only available data on smoke detector performance was in Lieutenant Sergio Apodaca's report in 1998 and in the Texas Fire Incident Reporting System records kept locally. This information can provide figures on fire related incidents, but not the general

24 populace. A short record of smoke detectors provided by the fire department included 53 smoke detectors provided to citizens at no cost. The information included in this research includes the data available for homes with reported fires and covers 1991 through 1999. The number of fires responded to in the City of El Paso has been on a general downward trend during the researched period. Table 1 illustrates the trend. There are years where the number of fires increases, but overall the number has gone down. The nine year period included here had a 30% decrease in the number of residential fires. Table 1 includes information for the years 1991 through 1999. The code numbers are the codes used by the National Fire Information Reporting System for smoke detectors. The numbers under the code headings are the total recorded for the year represented. The code numbers represent the following categories. Code National Fire Information entry 1 Present in Area; Operated 2 Not present in area; Operated 3 Present in area; Did not operate 4 Not present in area; Did not operate 5 Fire too small to activate detector 6 No Entry 7 No Entry 8 No detector present 9 Detector performance NCA 0 Detector performance unknown

25 For purposes of this research the categories for smoke detectors that operated and did not operate are combined in table one. Codes one, two, three and four are also shown combined to represent residences with detectors present. The category for fires that are too small to activate, detector performance NCA and performance unknown were not pertinent to this research. Table 1 Summary of smoke detector code entries 1991-1999 Codes Year Fires 1,2 3,4 1,2,3,4 8 1991 507 75 82 157 297 1992 529 85 87 172 291 1993 473 81 89 170 245 1994 433 78 75 153 233 1995 387 62 97 159 183 1996 357 63 71 134 176 1997 366 73 78 151 165 1998 315 68 69 137 124 1999 357 77 68 145 145 Codes one and two represent the number of smoke detectors that operated in fire conditions. These numbers fluctuate from 62 to 85. The difference is 23 occasions. Due to the downward trend in the number of fires the operating detectors are actually increasing. When they are examined as a percentage of the total fires in table two there is a steady increase. In 1991 detectors operated in 15% of fires, by 1999 detectors operated in 22% of fires.

26 Codes three and four represent the number of smoke detectors that failed in fire conditions. The number of failures has a slow decrease when examined in the table. The decrease is smaller than it appears when the decrease is related to the total number of fires. An unusually large number of failures occurred in 1995. The available data offered no explanation for this rise in failed detectors in single year. A number of fire personnel were asked if they thought code four, not in room and did not operate, was commonly used when no detector was present. The unanimous reply was that it was a common mistake. Code eight represents fire scenes with no detector present. There is a decrease in households having no smoke detector each year until the final year 1999. The number that year does remain within 2% of the total of the year preceding it. Homes having no smoke detector ranged from a high of 59% of the total number of homes with fires to 39% in 1998 and 41% in 1999 as shown in table two. Table 2 Smoke detector code percentages 1991-1999 Year Fires 1,2 3,4 1,2,3,4 8 1991 507 15% 16% 31% 59% 1992 529 16% 16% 33% 55% 1993 473 17% 19% 36% 52% 1994 433 18% 17% 35% 54% 1995 387 16% 25% 41% 47% 1996 357 18% 20% 38% 49% 1997 366 20% 21% 41% 45% 1998 315 22% 22% 43% 39% 1999 357 22% 19% 41% 41%

27 Table two demonstrates a slow rise in the percentage of homes with detectors until 1995. The year 1996 had a decrease of 3%. A leveling of the percentage of homes with detectors begins in 1995 with small fluctuations and little growth. A pattern can be observed by the increase in the combination of codes one, two, three and four compared to the slow overall increase in percentage for codes three and four. There are more smoke detectors in homes but they are not being maintained. (Apodaca,1999) 3. How do local trends compare with national trends regarding residential smoke detectors? National trends prior to 1991 cannot be compared due to an absence of accessible records for local conditions. Local information for the five-year period between 1994 and 1999 cannot be compared to available data for national conditions. The increase nationally in residences with smoke detector protection observed until 1994 culminating in 93% of homes being equipped with detectors (Smith, 1997) has not been equaled in the El Paso community. The data in table two evidences an increase in protected homes until 1993. The percentage in 1993 was 36%. A drop in the percentage of protected homes in 1994 to 35% was followed by a fluctuating increase ending in 1999 with 41%. Residential smoke detector protection has remained much lower in the local environment. National data on smoke detector maintenance has no equivalent locally available. No survey of the local population was available for comparison. The National Smoke Detector Project reported 20% of existing smoke detectors to be inoperable. (Hall, 1994) The local information available from the fire reporting

28 system had a mixed result. Table two contains five years when the percentage of homes with more detectors that did not operate than homes with operational detectors. Two years have an equal percentage of working and non-working smoke detectors. A different two years, including the last year, have more working detectors present than non-working. The average of inoperable detectors was 52% of all those with detectors in the fire reports. Nationally, homes with no detectors have more than half of the fires. (Hall, 1994) The group of residences at risk for fires has less detectors than any other population group. (Hall, 1994) The information on local smoke detector existence and performance was restricted to those residences where fires had been responded to by fire department units. This may partially explain why the percentage of homes lacking detectors and homes with nonworking detectors was larger than the national figures. 4. What methods can be used to increase smoke detector effectiveness in the local environment? The National Fire Academy course Strategic Analysis of Community Risk Reduction recommended three strategies for reducing risk of injury and death in the local community education, engineering and enforcement. These avenues for improvement are the most likely to result in success. Education is among the most powerful tools for reducing the loss of life and property. The fire service and the media need to educate the public about smoke detectors in several criteria. (Hall, 1988) The first task would be to convince people to obtain a detector. They need to be made aware that homes with smoke detectors cut in half the risk of dying should a fire occur. (Hall, 1994) Encouragement to obtain more

29 than one smoke detector would increase the probability that at least one would operate in the event of a fire. The second item needing publicity is choosing the proper detector for the application. Ionization type detectors should not be placed near cooking areas. Ionization type detectors generated 97% of nuisance alarms in the National Smoke Detector Project. (Smith, 1997) Ionization and photoelectric type detectors have different applications. Buildings would be better served when supplied with both types. (Spiteri, 2000) Correct installation of smoke alarms can reduce nuisance alarms and failure to operate in fire conditions. (Hall, 1994) Proper ceiling mounting away from walls, corners and air registers must be taught. (Ahrens, 1998) Studies have found as much as 36% of failed detectors to be incorrectly installed. (Hall, 1988) Once a detector is installed proper maintenance can reduce failure to 3.8 weeks over a 30-year period. (Cooper, 1986) Simple instruction for basic maintenance consisting of regular testing and battery replacement where necessary could decrease the failure rate of smoke detectors by 44%. (Hall, 1994) Education in this area should include the action to take when an alarm fails testing. (McClintock, 1987) Public information campaigns also need to advocate replacement of detectors at 10-year intervals. (McClintock, 1987) Enforcement of existing codes can increase the number of detectors present in the community and cause more of them to need less maintenance. Manufactured homes have been required to have hard-wired detectors since 1976. Most building codes have followed NFPA Life Safety Code for hard-wired detectors in new

30 construction since 1980. (Hall, 1994) Local safety codes require detectors to be installed in residential rental property. (Apodaca, 1999) Fire inspectors should be more diligent during inspection of accessible property. Engineering solutions already exist for several of the problems associated with smoke alarm operation. Lithium batteries with a 10-year lifespan are commercially available. (Spiteri, 2000) Hard-wired detectors need no battery replacement and are less likely to have power disconnected. (Ahrens, 1998) Testing an alarm by pushing the test button will cause the alarm to function even when the alarm is clogged with dust or insects. The best method for testing is to use an aerosol smoke product. (Cooper, 1996) In homes where fires occurred 59% of failed smoke detectors had a missing power source. One third of the residents had disconnected the alarm due to nuisance alarms. (Smith, 1997) One technology to reduce nuisance alarms is a silencer button. Silencer buttons silence the alarm for up to three minutes. They will continue to sound if the smoke is too dense until the smoke clears. (Ahrens, 1998) DISCUSSION One of the most significant developments in residential fire safety in the last quarter of the twentieth century has been the home smoke detector alarm. A 20% reduction in fire deaths in the United States in the four years prior to 1982 is credited to the presence of smoke detectors. Homes with smoke detectors have less than half the risk of those without them. They are the first line of defense to issue a warning in time to evacuate a residence involved in fire. (Ahrens, 1998) Studies on a national level in the early 1980s indicated an inclination toward detector failure due to a lack of owner maintenance. (Hall, 1988) The tendency reversed

31 itself by the middle 1990s with a yearly increase in operational detectors. (Hall, 1994) The National Smoke Detector Project found 92% of residential occupancies to have smoke detectors installed. Despite the reversal of the earlier trend toward neglect of detector maintenance 20% were found to be inoperable in 1993. (Hall, 1994) This statistic illustrates a need for public education about maintenance. The impact of restoring non-working detectors nationwide could have twice the effect that installation in homes with no detector would have. Incorrect installation and lack of maintenance are two significant factors in detector failure during tests and fires. In the United States 36% of the detector failures in home fires were attributed to incorrect installation. (Hall, 1988) Basic public education about smoke detectors could change this statistic. Nuisance alarms were cited as the reason for a third of the disconnected power sources in homes having fires. (Smith, 1997) Choosing the correct type of detector for the application, installing detectors in the proper location and doing maintenance properly can reduce nuisance alarms. The scope of the information available on national trends in smoke detectors could not be matched locally. Staffing levels in public education and administration for the fire service did not allow for statistically significant surveys of the general population. Texas Fire Reporting System data dealt exclusively with homes involved in fires. National studies on smoke detectors in homes with fires agreed with local data in regard to the general direction of trends for smoke detector placement in homes and maintenance of existing detectors. The percentages were far from being identical. The presence of smoke detectors in residences had reached 93% nationally by 1993.

32 (Smith, 1997) The percentage of local fire involved residences with smoke detectors in 1993 was 33%. The percentage in 1999 had improved to 41%. This remained behind the national figure of 1993 by 52%. One possible explanation can be found in the census information on the city of El Paso provided by the Planning Department. In table 17, Social Characteristics of Persons, for the 1990 census there is s category called "Language Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English". The total population of people over five years of age for the city at that time was 538,880. The portion identified as not speaking English very well included 169,213 people. (City of El Paso, 2000)This number represents people of all language backgrounds. A further breakdown found in the table has the number of people whose native language was Spanish who do not speak English very well as 165,046. This represents 31% of the population. The planning department for the city had projected the population to be 627,556 by January 1, 2000. Should the same percentage of the population speak Spanish and have limited ability in English the number of people involved would be 174,916. Official census information for the year 2000 should be available some time in 2001. The El Paso Fire Department public education section has presented programs in both Spanish and English. They also have experimented with bi-lingual programs. The number of personnel assigned the public education limited the audience exposed to these programs. Media presentation of public service commercials and announcements had a much wider impact on the population. These were seen primarily on English language broadcasts presented by English language stations. No information was available on the primary language spoken in the homes involved in fires.