North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association

Pub lic Edu ca tion Photo electric Smoke Al arm Campaign

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Contents
Cover & Contents (this page) NEOFPA Photoelectric Education Campaign: Covering Letter NEOFPA Photoelectric Education Campaign: Public Recommendation Columbus Dispatch: Hot Debate Smoke Alarms Under Scrutiny NEOFPA Rebuttal to Fire Chief Magazine Article NEOFPA Position Paper on Residential Smoke Detectors - 15 Aug 2012

Page
1 2 3 4 5 6 ~9

Check For Latest Version

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759 1 of 9

North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association Public Education - Photoelectric Smoke Alarm Campaign

October 9, 2012

Fire Chief / Fire Prevention Office XYZ Fire Department 1234 Main Street Yourtown OH 44444

neofpa@neofpa.org

P.O. Box 23795 Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023

www.neofpa.org

Extracted 25 October, 2012 from North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Associations websites Public Education Campaign Mailer - page 1: www.neofpa.org/announcements/neofpa-releases-photoelectric-educational-campaign-to-ohio-re-departments

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

2 of 9

iiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii

iiiiiii iiiiiii iiiiiii

neofpa@neofpa.org

P.O. Box 23795 Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023

www.neofpa.org

Extracted 25 October, 2012 from North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Associations websites Public Education Campaign Mailer - page 2: www.neofpa.org/announcements/neofpa-releases-photoelectric-educational-campaign-to-ohio-re-departments

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

3 of 9

Common smoke detectors under scrutiny for being slow to catch smoldering fires
By Jim Weiker

The Columbus Dispatch Sunday October 21, 2012 5:08 AM

As homeowners check the batteries in their smoke detectors this month, they might also want to check the type of detector those batteries are going into. A growing number of experts recommend photoelectric detectors instead of or in addition to ionization detectors, which are in about 90 percent of U.S. homes. A handful of states including Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts and Vermont require photoelectric detectors in homes, either on their own or in addition to ionization detectors. A similar bill is expected to be introduced in Ohio soon, said Dean Dennis, a Madeira, Ohio, man who lost a daughter in a 2003 fire near Ohio State University. I estimate that 500 to 1,000 lives could be saved a year if we required photoelectric detectors, Dennis said. Theres no doubt in my mind that they are superior, no doubt at all. Photoelectric and ionization detectors rely on particles interrupting a signal. Ionization detectors are set off when particles interrupt an electric current; photoelectric detectors go off when particles deflect a light signal. Both are recommended by Underwriters Laboratories, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the National Fire Prevention Association. Most experts say photoelectric detectors are more sensitive to smoldering fires, which are common in home fires. In a smoldering fire, the photoelectric detectors will activate sooner, said Jim Brinkley, the director of occupational health and safety with the International Association of Fire Fighters, based in Washington. In a fast-flaming fire, the ionization detectors react a little better, but they are not typical of the type of fires found in most homes. Ken Harrington, owner of Kustom Home Inspection in Delaware and a trainer with the American Society of Home Inspectors, said a change in household furnishings is one reason he thinks photoelectric detectors are better. When smoke alarms first came out, they worked fine, but, along the way, we started getting more and more fire-retardant carpeting, drapery, bed linens and so on, so we have material that doesnt flame as fast but smolders, he said. The old ionization detectors may not set off an alarm until you get flames, but a lot of times, thats too late. If my son or daughter were buying the house, I would strongly recommend photoelectric detectors. Critics of ionization detectors also say the detectors have another flaw: They are far more likely to be triggered by harmless kitchen smoke or steam, which leads homeowners to disconnect them. Brinkleys organization, which represents about 300,000 firefighters throughout the world, is the largest professional group to call for U.S. and Canadian building codes to require photoelectric detectors in homes. Several smaller groups, including the Central Ohio Fire Prevention Association and the Northeast Ohio Fire Officials Association, have taken similar positions. The movement is also gaining steam from several recent television news segments, including one this month on the Today show, that have shown ionization detectors failing to sound even in chambers full of smoke. Some segments are based on the research of Texas A&M University professor Don Russell, whose work is widely cited by critics of ionization detectors. Theres so much data on this topic, said Skip Walker, a home inspector in California and a member of the American Society of Home Inspectors, which has endorsed photoelectric detectors. It all says the same thing: These things (ionization detectors) dont work the way theyre supposed to. A report commissioned by Ohio Fire Marshal Larry Flowers this year has also fueled the debate. The reports conclusion, that no statistical difference exists between the detectors, drew strong criticisms from some fire officials. Nothing could be further from the truth, wrote the Northeast Ohio Fire Officials Association in response to the report. Deputy Chief Fire Marshal Jeffrey Leaming said, Theres no data to support one technology over another and that the most important message for homeowners is to simply have a working detector, regardless of type. We need to stop this debate, he said. We know a working detector will save lives. I would not recommend one type over the other because all the testing agencies continue to support both technologies. Leaming added that homeowners seeking the best protection might want both types of alarms in their homes. He said he would be reluctant to endorse one type of detector because detection technology is changing rapidly. Alan Perkins, fire marshal for the Washington Township Fire Department and a supporter of photoelectric detectors, acknowledged that the device could become outdated. Within three to five years there will be a new technology that will replace this technology, he said. First Alert, one of the nations largest manufacturers of smoke detectors, declined a request to speak on the topic. The companys website states that photoelectric detectors are more sensitive to smoldering fires and ionization detectors more sensitive to flaming fires and recommends both types. Kidde, another major manufacturer, also recommends both types. Homeowners can look on the back of a smoke detector to learn what technology it relies upon. Both types of detectors are available in either battery or hard-wired versions, and manufacturers offer dual-sensor alarms that contain both types of detection in one unit. But some fire officials caution against such units because they can give off so many nuisance alarms. Its OK to have both types of detectors but not a combination detector, because that will still be prone to false alarms, Brinkley said. You might see those disabled too much.
Extracted 25 October, 2012 from Columbus Dispatch website: www.dispatch.com/content/stories/home_and_garden/2012/10/21/1-detector-art-g36jr8m0-1.html NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759 4 of 9

NEOFPA Issues Rebuttal to Fire Chief Magazine Article

OCTOBER 13, 2012 BY DEVON

Upon recommendation of the general membership, the NEOFPA Executive Board sent a rebuttal letter to the editor of Fire Chief Magazine in reference to an article published in the July 2012 edition. The article was a summary of the results of the Ohio Smoke Alarm Advisory Task Force (SAATF) and was submitted by Robert R. Rielage, a previous Fire Marshal for the State of Ohio and the Chair of the SAATF. Mr Rielage is also listed as a Contributing Editor for Fire Chief Magazine. The article was published before the Ohio Fire Marshals Office had released the results of the SAATF report, which was summarized in the article. See the Fire Chief article here: Fire Chief Magazine Article (371.96 kB) See NEOFPAs rebuttal letter here: Fire Chief Article NEOFPA Rebuttal (287.37 kB)
Extracted 25 October, 2012 from Columbus Dispatch website: wwwneofpa.org/announcements/neofpa-issues-rebuttal-to-re-chief-magazine-article/

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

5 of 9

North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association

Position Paper: Residential Smoke Detectors 1 of 4

POSITION PAPER RESIDENTIAL SMOKE DETECTORS By North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association (NEOFPA) MARCH 2010 FINAL
(Unanimously voted on by the membership April 5, 2010)
(Revised August 15, 2012)

Extracted 25 October, 2012 from North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Associations websites Photoelectric Smoke Alarm Fact Page: http://neofpa.org/public-re-safety-information/smoke-detectors/photoelectric-smoke-alarms-save-more-lives/

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

6 of 9

North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association

Position Paper: Residential Smoke Detectors 3 of 4

The North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association (NEOFPA) is a fire prevention group which was formed to organize the Fire Prevention Bureaus of Fire Departments throughout northeast Ohio, so that fire prevention related matters such as code changes, fire safety issues, and other related topics can be uniformly supported and disseminated with one cohesive voice. NEOFPA membership represents over 300 fire departments and private fire protection companies throughout Northeast Ohio, and has experienced continued growth since its inception. Participating support is recognized by the State Fire Marshals Office and the Ohio Fire Officials Association. Education, Enforcement, and Engineering are the premises for all fire prevention activities. The purpose is to be effective in the execution of any changes necessary to protect the public throughout a statewide network of fire officials. NEOFPA recognizes the need for establishing a critical position on the use of residential smoke detectors. Within the last few years, manufacturers of smoke detectors have improved technology to a level where the residential homeowner is now in a better position of being protected than in the past. After researching articles published by National Institute of Standards and Testing (NIST), the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and Texas A&M University, NEOFPA with the backing of the Ohio Fire Officials Association (OFOA), is establishing a position that supports the installation of residential smoke detectors utilizing photoelectric technology. This position also supports the use of supplementing photoelectric detectors with ionization detectors when desired. Residential fires account for the majority of all fire fatalities. Fires occurring in the residential setting can either be a smoldering or a flaming type fire. It is the position of NEOFPA that all homes be protected with both technologies with additional emphasis on the placement of photoelectric detectors in areas subject to false alarms. Since false alarms of smoke detectors can result in the removal of batteries, which render the detector inoperative, it is our position that the specific technology be considered for detector placement in certain areas of the home. The documentation clearly supports the use of photoelectric detectors in areas commonly exposed to false alarms.

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

7 of 9

North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association

Position Paper: Residential Smoke Detectors 3 of 4

The current standards for residential occupancies specify smoke detector placement on every floor level, in every sleeping room, and outside of each separate sleeping area within 21 feet of any door to a sleeping room. In areas where detectors are located close to the kitchen and or bathrooms, it is NEOFPAs position that photoelectric detectors be used exclusively. The intent of this recommendation is to reduce false alarms commonly associated with cooking and steam from bathrooms, which are known common causes for ionization detectors to false alarm. The use of photoelectric detectors will reduce the likelihood of false alarms, and the subsequent removal of the battery, as well as improving overall detector performance in the majority of cases. The remaining portions of the home should also be protected by photoelectric detectors with additional support from ionization detectors when available. Since the type of fire cannot be predicted, utilizing both technologies within a residence could provide greater protection of the occupants. The NEOFPA recognizes that not all residents will be able to meet the recommendations of our position as described above. There should be an emphasis placed on the importance that detector technology, and the placement of the detectors as both of these factors have a significant impact on occupant survivability. It is important that the above recommendations be followed in their entirety whenever possible. In situations where a choice of only one type of detector must be made, photoelectric detectors should be chosen over ionization. The rationale being, that photoelectric are less susceptible to false alarms thus reducing the potential for battery removal which will render the detector inoperable. The NEOFPA further supports detectors which have restricted or limited battery access. This will deter the removal of batteries and their use for other purposes. Along the same line, Lithium type batteries are proven to have a long operational life (up to ten years), and are encouraged to be the battery of choice for residential detectors. Any detector utilizing a proprietary battery with a tenyear life span is also encouraged since the occurrences of removing the batteries are greatly reduced. The NEOFPA also recognizes the importance of early occupant notification. The NEOPFA encourages and recommends the interconnection of all installed smoke detectors either by conventional hard-wiring or by installing listed wireless interconnected detectors when hard wiring is not practical. The interconnection of smoke detectors has been shown to provide the earliest

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

8 of 9

North Eastern Ohio Fire Prevention Association

Position Paper: Residential Smoke Detectors 4 of 4

warning possible to sleeping occupants, particularly when the origin of the fire is remote to the sleeping area. It is important to note that battery operated wireless interconnected smoke detectors employing photoelectric technology currently are not always available off the shelf in retail stores, but are readily available for purchase through internet retailers and direct from manufacturers. These interconnected detectors can be easily obtained and installed in existing homes by the end user. Most smoke detectors are listed by their manufacturer as having a 10-year life span. At the end of the detectors life span, the occupant should replace them. Given the ten-year battery technology and the ten-year life span of most detectors, there is a reasonable platform to encourage regular replacement of detectors and batteries. In summary, the NEOFPA issues this position statement paper in order to make clear the specific type of detectors and their locations needed in the residential setting, and to provide maximum protection with limited false alarms and deactivations. It is also our position that detectors have a limited life span and replacement at the end of that life span is essential for proper life safety protection. John Desmarteau Middleburg Heights Fire Dept. President Devon Paullin Shaker Heights Fire Dept. (Ret.) Secretary Jim Alunni Chagrin Falls Fire Dept. Board of Directors Joe Fleming Broadview Heights Fire Dept. Board of Directors Michael Kocab Willoughby Fire Dept. Board of Directors Shaun Lutz Beachwood Fire Dept. Vice-President James Davis Auburn Twp. Fire Dept. Treasurer Michael A. Dunton Cuyahoga Falls Fire Dept. Board of Directors Michael Girbino Mayfield Village Fire Dept. Board of Directors

NEOFPA_PhotoelectricSmokeAlarmCampaign27Oct12.pdf | Check for Latest Version: www.scribd.com/doc/111093759

9 of 9