FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010

8/9/2019 FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010

1/56

armsWhy are people dying in fires with

wor ng mo e arms

,


2/56

AndreaDennis,

Kyle

Raulin,

AlSchlessman,ErinDeMarco,

andChristineWilson

Thesefivestudentsdiedat

OhioStateUniversit on

April13,2003


3/56

JulieTurnbull,

KateWelling&

SteveSmith

diedin

this

houseonApril

10th,2005at

Miami

University


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.


5/56

Chickasaw Alabama

(May28,

2008)

couldnotmakeitoutofthefamilyhouse.

thatneverwentoff.

smoke

or

they

sound

very

late....Williams

attorneyRichardTaylor


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.


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


8/56

ThisHappenstooOften

Ft.Wa ne,IN

(January23,2009)

afterbeingrescuedfromapartmentcomplex.

atleasttworesidentsoftheapartmenttoldtheNewsSentineltheywokearound5a.m.nottoa

saidshe

heard

from

other

students

whose

apartmentwascompletelyfullofsmokeande ra arms no soun e er.


9/56

HOMESTRUCTUREFIRES

MartyAhrens

NationalFireProtectionAssociation

FireAnalysisandResearchDivision

Roughlyhalfofallhomefiredeathsresult

. .

and7:00a.m.


10/56

FireDeathsandInjuries:FactSheet

en ers

or

sease

on ro

an

reven on

Mostvictims

of

fires

die

from

smoke

or

toxic

.

Smokingistheleadingcauseoffirerelateddeaths(Ahrens2009a).


11/56

THESMOKINGMATERIALFIREPROBLEM

JohnR.Hall,Jr.

FireAnal sis

and

Research

Division


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

.


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


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


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


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


16/56

Thenumberofdeathshasremainedconstantfor

t e

ast

years,

eat s

orevery

,

res.


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


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.


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.


20/56

NIST2008

ALARMTIMES

IN

SECONDS

39 minutes after the photoelectric

The photoelectric is blue The ionization is red


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


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.


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


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


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


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)


27/56


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.


29/56

PerformanceofDualPhotoelectric/Ionization SmokeAlarmsinFullScaleFireTests

ThomasCleary

BuildingandFireResearchLaboratory

National

Institute

of

Standards

and

Technolo

Gaithersburg,MD

(301)9756858

[email protected]

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.


30/56

ULTesting

Video


31/56

SmokeAlarmPresenceandPerformanceSeptember

2009

NFPA

Report

by

Marty

Ahrens

40%

23%NoSmokeDetector

mo e e ec or resen

andWorking

SmokeDetectorDisabled

37%


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)


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.


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)


35/56

FalseAlarmsandUnwantedActivationsFrom:

U.S.EXPERIENCE

WITH

SMOKE

ALARMS

ANDOTHERFIREDETECTIONAL/ALARMEQUIPMENTBy:MartyAhrens


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


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.


37/56

MartyAhrens


November2004

1/3ofalarmscitedfornuisanceactivationswerelocatedincorrectly.

Nuisancealarmproblemsoftencanbeaddressedbymovingthedevicetoadifferent

.

thedevicesstudiedfornuisancealarmsintheNationalSmokeDetectorProjectwere

reportedlyinlocationsthatmadenuisancealarmsmorelikely,oftenlessthanfivefeetfrom

, , .

ove your a arm or sw c o a p o oe ec r c a arm.


38/56


Non-Working Alarm

Factors

Working Alarm

Factors

37.29%Dead Battery Victim Intimatewith fire

62.7%



problems Technology Failure

(Alarm didnt operate)(Signaled too late)


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


40/56

StatementfortheRecord

NationalInstituteofStandardsandTechnology

Tothe

BostonCity

Council

Committee

on

Public

Safety

August6,2007

owever,ionizationa armsmaynota ways

alarmevenwhenaroomisfilledwithsmoke

romasmo er ng re.


41/56

TexasA&MStudyRisk

Analysis

of

Residential

Fire

Detector

Performance

Thedevelopmentoftheriskanalysisofferedaclearinsightintowhy

therecontinuestobeahighresidentialdeathrateinspiteof

anincrease

in

the

residences

reported

to

have

smoke

.

Thecurrentthoughtprocessdemonstratedbyfireofficialsintheposition,

thehomewithoutconsiderationastothetypeofpotentialfireignition

thatmostfrequentlyoccursortothequalityofthefiredetector.

Areviewoftheriskanalysisprovidesaclearexampleoftheprobabilityofadetectorfailureifthereisnoconsiderationastotheriskinvolvedwith

.


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:


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.


44/56


Non-Working Alarm

Factors

Working Alarm

Factors

37.29%Dead Battery Victim Intimatewith fire

62.7%



problems Technology Failure

(Alarm didnt operate)(Signaled too late)

Endorsements


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


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


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).


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:


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.


50/56


51/56

AustralasianFireAuthoritiesCouncil

Positionon

Smoke

Alarms

in

Residential

Accommodation

June 1 2006

That

all

residential

accommodation

be

fitted

withphotoelectricsmokealarms.


52/56

PhotoelectricSmokeAlarms

SenateBillS226,passedandrequiresthatsinglefamily

owneroccupied

homes

have

aphotoelectric

smoke

detector

oneachfloorandoutsideanybedrooms. Combinationz u

asanalternativefortheselocationsbecauseofthefalsealarmsthataremorecommonwithionization.Peopledisarm

.smokedetectorsthathadbeendisabledbytheoccupant.

Thesedetectorsmustbephotoelectriconly.Ionizationcanbeusedinadditiontothephotoelectrics thatarerequired,butmustbeseparate.

TheGovernorofVermontsignedthebillonMay29th,2008attheBarre CityFire


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.


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.


55/56

SESSION2009

H1

The

smoke

detectors

shall

utilize

either

photoelectricordualionizationand

photoelectricsensortechnology


56/56

DeanandDoug

Documents

FFFS Smoke Detector Presentation - June, 2010