developing a smoke alarm program for colerain township

8/9/2019 Developing a Smoke Alarm Program for Colerain Township

1/87

Smoke Alarm Program 1

Running head: DEVELOPING A SMOKE ALARM PROGRAM FOR COLERAIN

Developing a Smoke Alarm Program for Colerain Township

Darian E. Edwards

Colerain Township Department of Fire And Emergency Medical Services

Colerain Township, Ohio


2/87


CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of

others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where

I have used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed: _______________________________________


3/87


ABSTRACT

The problem was that Colerain Township Fire Department did not have a smoke alarm

program, thus subjected residents, according to data, to a higher incident of injuries and deaths

due to fires.

The purpose was to develop and or implement a smoke alarm program for Colerain

Township to reduce injuries or deaths. 1. What were the associated risks of not having smoke

alarms. 2. Of the two common smoke alarms sensors, ionization and photoelectric, what did

Colerain Township recommend? 3. What area, within each of the five fire districts, had a high

risk of fire injuries or death?

This research project was to utilize an action research method and approach. There was

an extensive amount of literature review, questionnaires, observations and interviews to assist in

the pursuit of this research project.

Multiple studies shows that about 70% of all fire fatalities occur in residences that have

no functioning smoke alarms. Yet, 95% of the homes in the U.S. have smoke alarms. Of the two

smoke alarm sensors, the photoelectric smoke alarm is much more dependable for a quicker

response to smoke with a lesser degree of false alarms. In Colerain Township there are 29

distinct fire response zones. Of the 29 fire response zones, two zones accounts for 57% of all

civilian fire casualties.

It is this authors recommendation that an ordinance be passed that mandates the use of

photoelectric smoke alarms in new construction and phased into existing buildings. Along with

the ordinance there must be a well organized public education plan. The highest fire casualty

zones must be addressed with active fire department interventions such as smoke alarm


4/87


installation programs. Revisiting these residences at set intervals must be accomplished to

collect data for the programs longevity and continued support.


5/87


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Certification Statement 2

Abstract 3

Table of Contents 5

Introduction 6

Background and Significance 7

Literature Review 10

Procedures 20

Results 22

Discussion 33

Recommendations 36

Reference List 40

Appendix A 42

Appendix B 47

Appendix C 65

Appendix D 67

Appendix E 69

Appendix F 71

Appendix G 73

Appendix H 75

Appendix I 79

Appendix J 81

Appendix K 83

Appendix L 86


6/87


INTRODUCTION


program, thus subjecting residents, according to data, to a higher incident of injuries and deaths

due to fires.

The purpose was to develop and or implement a smoke alarm program for Colerain

Township to reduce injuries or deaths. For decades it has been standard that homes will have

smoke detectors. For the last four decades the fire service has been preaching that smoke

detectors save lives.

1. What were the associated risks of not having smoke alarms. 2. Of the two common

smoke alarms sensors, ionization and photoelectric, what did Colerain Township recommend? 3.

What area, within each of the five fire districts, had a high risk of fire injuries or death?

This research project is to utilize an action research method and approach in order to take

immediate action to our problem by creating a concrete solution. There will be an extensive

amount of literature review, questionnaires, observations and interviews to assist in the pursuit of

this research project. While the overall research was that of an action method, question #1

utilized the historical method of research by analyzing data from many sources such as National

Fire Incident Reporting System, NFIRS, United States Fire Administration, USFA, multiple

reports and data collections. The evaluative method of research was utilized to assess and

analyze data and make a decision for question #2. Question #3 also used the evaluative method

of research to identify five distinct areas of high risk associated with injuries and deaths from

fires.


7/87


BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Colerain Township is the largest unincorporated jurisdiction in the state of Ohio. It is

located ten miles to the northwest of the city of Cincinnati. The northern boundary of Colerain

Township is that of Butler County, Ohio. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the Township has

a population of 58,499 residents occupying 43.5 sq.ml. (Census) Colerain Township is only

surpassed by that of West Chester Township in Butler County with regards to population of

townships in the state of Ohio. West Chester boasts a population of 60,958. (Census) The

residents of Colerain Township are very diverse. We have a myriad of socioeconomics and

lifestyles with homes of the affluent to low-income and subsidized housing. The land use is that

of agricultural, light industry, and a large portion of retail. The Colerain Township Department

of Fire and Emergency Medical Services (Colerain Fire Department) has a rating of a Class two

from the Insurance Services Office.

Smoke alarms were not commercially available until the 1960’s. In 1965 the “single

station”, also referred to as “stand alone” smoke alarm was produced. At that time the use of

smoke alarms in the United States, U.S., was at less than 1%. In 1969 the battery operated

smoke alarm was made available to the public at a price of about $100 each. By 1975 General

Electric was producing smoke alarms for less than $40 each. (Bukowksi, et al., 2007) By the

year 2000, the price of smoke alarms had drastically dropped which allowed over 95% of

residences to have smoke alarms.

If in the U.S. today, we have approximately 95% compliance with the use of smoke

alarms in residence, and an even higher percentage of smoke alarms used in commercial settings,

then the question would be why do we still have a significant amount of injuries and fatalities

due to fires? In 1977 the U.S. had 7395 civilian fire deaths. In 2007 the U.S. had 3430 civilian


8/87


fire deaths. Most would say that we have cut civilian fire deaths in half, the smoke alarms

worked and have saved lives. However in 1977 there were 3,264,000 structure fires. Again

looking at the amount of structure fires in the U.S., in 2007 there were a reported 1,557,500 fires.

(Burn Survior Throughout The World Inc., N.D.) The civilian fire deaths have decreased in

direct relationship to the decreased amount of structure fires in the U.S.

The vast majority of smoke alarms in residential occupancies have the ionization sensor

technology. The ionization technology has been in use since the inception of alarms being mass

produced for the general public. The price of ionization smoke alarms is between 25% to 50% of

the price of a photoelectric sensor smoke alarm.

The American Red Cross provided Colerain Township Fire Department with hundreds of

ionization smoke alarms. For years the fire department would give the alarms to the residents at

no charge. The American Red Cross program was abandoned by Colerain Township Fire

Department approximately 4 years ago. Why would any organization stopped given away life

saving devices? The reason was simply because there was growing concern and studies being

made available as to the uncertainty and unreliability of the ionization technology in the smoke

alarms. Colerain Township Fire Department took a strong stand that they would not provide a

less than reliable, less than safe device to anyone, regardless of the price or who was backing the

program. Colerain would not give an inferior product to their residents, thus leaving them with a

false sense of security and protection to their families. Unfortunately without a strong smoke

alarm educational program, their will be a higher incident rate for injuries and or fatalities.

What justification did Colerain Township Fire Department have in refusing to give away

free smoke alarms? Much of the fire service has become aware of scientific studies being


9/87


conducted with regards to the ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms. In 1995 Texas A&M

University published results of their three year study. They concluded that

“in the smoldering stage of fire the ionization alarm had a 55.8% failure

rate to the photoelectric alarms 4.06% failure rate. Note: ‘failure rate’ is

calculated from statistics showing one or more people died in a house fire. In the

flaming stage of fire compared , where the ionization alarm is claimed to have a

few seconds advantage, it had a 19.8% failure rate, to the photoelectric alarms

3.99% failure rate.” (Grosse, DeJong, & Murphy, 2011)

The applied research project will have an established link to the Executive Analysis of

Community Risk Reduction course taught at the National Fire Academy. This ARP will

empower the Colerain Township Fire Department and the residents of Colerain Township with

the ability to prevent, reduce, and mitigate the increase risk of injury or deaths due to a lack of a

smoke alarm plan. This ARP is to address education of the residents and fire personnel of the

smoke alarm concern. By doing proper research, we will have identified the best engineered

smoke alarm for increased safety. A proper plan will be developed for enforcement of any codes

or standards. There will also be an increase in the emergency response by the fire department

due to early notification of fire incidences in the homes.


program, thus subjected residents, according to data, to a higher incident of injuries and deaths

due to fires. By developing and or implementing a smoke alarm program for Colerain Township,

there is a direct correlation to two of the goals in the strategic plan of the United States Fire

Administration (USFA). The first goal of the USFA, reduce risk at the local level through

prevention and mitigation, would be addressed. In addition, by the implementation of a risk


10/87


reduction program, we would be able to improve the fire and emergency services’ professional

status to our local community and possibly served as a mentor for other fire services that have

had similar dilemmas.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose was to gather and review relevant information in the development and or

implementation of a smoke alarm program for Colerain Township for the reduction of injuries

or deaths in residential occupancies. The use of smoke alarms in the U.S. has become common

practices in all occupancies. The use of smoke alarms has risen from less than 5% in the early

1970’s to over 95% today. Building and fire codes have incorporated mandatory smoke alarms

in virtually all occupancies. Fire department life safety inspectors perform inspections of retail,

industry, places of assembly, apartment complexes, hotels, motels, etc.. Where the life safety

inspections fall short are single and two family residential occupancies. The concern of this ARP

is the residential occupancies of single family residences regardless of construction type.

In April 2006, the Public/Private Fire Safety Council published the WHITE PAPER

HOME SMOKE ALARMS AND OTHER FIRE DETECTION AND ALARM EQUIPMENT (White

Paper Alarms). The White Paper had 18 various private and public organizations represented

with their members as contributors to the research The organizations represented included

groups such as, USAF, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Consumer Product Safety

Commission, Underwriters Laboratories Inc., and the International Fire Chiefs Association.


11/87


Research Question #1

What are the associated risks of not having smoke alarms? Smoke alarms are designed to

activate when smoke conditions are present, thus giving occupants adequate warning and time to

exit a potentially toxic and fatal environment.

In the Smoke Alarm Response and Tenability report produced by Hughes Associates, Inc.,

they discuss several environmental factors inside a structure fire that affects the abilities of

individuals to exit the unsafe conditions. In the Tenability Analysis section it states “visibility

through smoke is not actually a measure of a life threatening tenability criterion. Reduce

visibility if often considered as a mechanism that slows occupants egress”. In the Tenability

Analysis it also states that “Many studies have used smoke concentration (or visibility) as a

criterion for which an occupant may stop attempting to egress”. The Smoke Alarm Response and

Tenability report does include thermal conditions as a measurable untenable condition. When

the temperature of a room reaches 120 degrees Celsius (248 Fahrenheit), at five foot from the

floor, occupants have a reported tolerance of seven minutes. (Christopher Mealy, 2011)

Being away from home does not remove a person from the dangers associated with fires.

Andrew K. Pantelis authored a research paper titled The Impact of Alcohol Consumption on Fire

Egress Behavior for the Executive Fire Officer (EFO) program. On page five of his introduction

he states, “The United States Fire Administration (USFA) has recorded that approximately fifty

percent of university-related fire fatalities nationwide involved people who were under the

influence of alcohol at the time of the incident”. (Pantelis, 2008) On page 30 of the Results

section of The Impact of Alcohol Consumption on Fire Egress Behavior , Pantelis explains that at


12/87


a blood alcohol level of 0.03% there is a mean increase in egress time of 11.20% and a mean

increase in egress time of 70.58% when the blood alcohol level of 0.12%.

Information contained on page 4, Executive Summary, of the White Paper Alarms states

that 96% of the residential occupancies have smoke detectors, 4% of the homes do not have

smoke detectors at all. There is also an additional 20% of the homes that have smoke detectors,

yet they are not working due to batteries either being missing or dead. Page 11 of the White

Paper Alarms references a report titled U.S. experience with smoke alarms, this report was

authored by Marty Ahrens. The reference states that homes with working smoke alarms

represents 30% of fire fatalities. The 4% of homes without smoke alarms account for 39% of all

fire fatalities. If you add the category of smoke alarms present, but inoperable, then the

percentage increases to 70% of the fire fatalities. (Council, 2006)

Marty Ahrens has done extensive research for the National Fire Protection Association

(NFPA). In a report titled Smoke Alarm Presence and Performance in U.S. Home Fires, Ahrens

states that “No smoke alarms were present at all in 40% of the home fire deaths. Alarms were

present but did not operate in 23% of the fatalities (Ahrens, ND).” This gives the total of fire

fatalities due to an absence of functional smoke alarms, regardless of structural occupancy

classification, similar to residential settings of 63%-70%.


Of the two common smoke alarms sensors, ionization and photoelectric, what does

Colerain Township recommend for their residences? Smoke alarms that are for sale to the

residential consumers contain an ionization sensor or photoelectric sensor. Some detectors do

have both sensors present in the alarm. On any given day you can find the smoke alarms in the


13/87


big box stores such as Lowes, Home Depot, Wal-mart, etc. The prices vary from five dollars

each to over 30 dollars a piece. Does the type of sensor in the smoke alarm make a difference?

This ARP will show that it does.

Both of the smoke alarms reviewed in the ARP, ionization and photoelectric, can be

electrically powered by an a/c house current or battery power supply. The ionization smoke

alarm has a sensor that contains a small amount of radioactive material, americium, within the

ionization chamber. The americium is encased within a gold and americium ingots foil matrix.

The americium/gold source produces alpha particles. These particles then pass in between two

metal plates. One of the plates has a positive electrical charge while the second has a negative

electrical charge. The radioactive alpha particles move through the air, consisting of oxygen and

nitrogen, and displace electrons from the oxygen/nitrogen mixture. The electrons then become

either; positively charged and move towards the negatively charged metal plate, the negatively

charged electron move towards the positively charged metal plate. This moving of electrons to

the charged plates keep a small electrical current in the sensing chambers. If smoke particles or

other gases enter into the chamber, they disrupt the flow of electricity between the metal plates

which then activates the alarm. (EPA, Ionization Technology, 2012)

The photoelectric smoke alarm has a “T” shaped sensing chamber. The top of the

chamber, the horizontal bar, has a light emitting diode also known as an LED. The LED sends a

light from one end of the horizontal chamber to the other end. If smoke particles enter into the

sensing chamber, the light beam is then interrupted causing the light beam to have some

deflection of light. There is a photocell at the bottom of the “T” or the vertical beam. When

light hits the photocell it generates an electrical current. This electrical current then activates the

alarm. (EPA, Photoelectric Technology, 2012)


14/87


Are the two smoke alarm sensors equal? Should the fire service, more specifically

Colerain Township, recommend a particular sensor to their residents? When you do a simple

internet search “ionization versus photoelectric smoke alarms”, it returns 287,000 results. Many

of the reputable organizations that have researched which smoke alarm is better referred to a

common thread for their research. The Texas A&M University published a report in August of

1995. While this report may seem outdated for this ARP, much of its findings have found their

way into new smoke alarm research.

“Researchers at Texas A&M University, along with support from the

University of Colorado and Iowa, completed a three year smoke alarm study in

the August 1995. They were concerned that Underwriters Laboratories testing of

smoke alarms, by putting a smoke detector in a wooden box and then by blowing

hot smoke into it, was did not representative of real-world fire conditions.

Texas A&M’s testing was a fault-tree-analysis model designed by Bell

Laboratories for the United States military. After three years research they

concluded: - In the smoldering stage of fire the ionization alarm had a 55.8%

failure rate to the photoelectric alarms 4.06% failure rate.

(Note: ‘failure rate’ is calculated from statistics showing one or more people died

in a house fire. In the flaming stage of fire compared , where the ionization

alarm is claimed to have a few seconds advantage, it had a 19.8% failure rate, to

the photoelectric alarms 3.99% failure rate.” (Texas A&M University Study,

2011)


15/87


In the original research performed by Texas A&M University, the ionization smoke

detector had a higher failure rate than that of the photoelectric detector, regardless of type of fire

scenario being tested. A failure rate of any product between 20% to 56% would be unacceptable

by most consumers. To put this another way, compare the failure rates of the two smoke alarms

to that of two vehicles you were looking at purchasing for your family. One vehicle would break

down, depending upon road conditions, at a rate of 20% to 56%. The second vehicle would

break down on the same road conditions at a rate of 4%. Which vehicle would you get for your

family? When we look at the results of the Texas A&M University studies, we see that the

photoelectric smoke alarm is much more reliable than that of the ionization smoke alarm.

In July 2009, the NFPA issued a follow up report, original report February 22, 2008,

addressing the significance of the two smoke alarm sensor technologies. Appendix D, page 130,

addressed “nuisance alarms” of the two smoke alarm technologies. The report includes

information gathered from a study performed in Washington State From June 1, 2000 to July

31, 2002, 757 homes had either the ionization or photoelectric smoke alarms installed. The

same homes were visited nine months and 15 months later. At the nine month follow up visit,

20% of the ionization smoke alarms and 5% of the photoelectric smoke alarms were found to be

non-functional. The 15 month follow up had similar results. When questioned about the alarms,

the occupants common reason was that the alarms were disabled because of “nuisance” alarms.

Most of the nuisance alarms occurred from cooking, thus the occupants removed the batteries or

the entire smoke alarm. (Committee, 2009) Previously in this ARP it was noted that 23% of all

fire fatalities occurred in homes with smoke alarms that were disabled or non-functional.

There is one additional option that many organizations are advocating. The dual sensor

smoke alarm is equipped with both the ionization and the photoelectric sensing technology. In


16/87


theory if a smoke alarm has both sensors in the same unit, then there would be optimum

protection against both the smoldering and flaming fire. Unfortunately the dual technology still

produces the nuisance alarms, mainly from cooking, that leads to removal of batteries or

detectors thus increasing the risk of fire fatalities. For nine months the Consumer Product Safety

Commission conducted studies of homes in the Washington D.C. area testing the nuisance

alarms in the kitchens of residential homes.

“Results For smoke alarms 5 feet from the stove, nuisance alarms occurred

during 8.7% (41/469) of cooking events for ionization, 11.3% (53/469) for dual-

sensor, and 3.0% (14/469) for photoelectric smoke alarms. At 10 ft. from the

stove, nuisance alarms occurred during 4.9% (23/469) of cooking events for

ionization, 8.7% (41/469) for dual-sensor, and 6.0% (28/469) for photoelectric

smoke alarms. At 20 feet from the stove, nuisance alarms occurred during 1.1%

(5/469) of cooking events for ionization, 1.1% (5/469) for dual-sensor, and 0.9%

(4/469) for photoelectric smoke alarms.” (intern), ND)


What area, within each of the five fire districts, had a high risk of fire injuries or death?

The information retrieved during the research of question three was obtained from the Firehouse

Software that is utilized for our departments National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).

The current edition utilized was Firehouse Software 7.2. The parameters of the searches were

limited to those of structure fires, interior fires. The searches were further filtered by requesting

information with regards to the incidents street location, assigned fire zone, and status of smoke


17/87


alarm in the area of the fire. A ten year search, January 1, 2003 through January 1, 2013, was

performed with regards to civilian injuries.

Five additional searches were performed for years, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008.

Theses searches were similar to the ten year search, with the exception of casualties. This

individual years of data were collected on all building fires, with interior fires.

It should be noted that the Firehouse Software search was original research conducted by

this author. All search result, as they relate to question three, were forwarded to Captain Mark

Walsh for his review. Captain Walsh is in charge of the Life Safety Bureau in Colerain

Township. Captain Walsh has extensive knowledge of the topic of this ARP. Captain Walsh can

be contacted through his direct office line of 513-245-6505.

During the time from January 1, 2003 through January 1, 2013 there were 87 civilian

injuries that resulted from 69 building fires. (Edwards, 2013) Of the 87 listed injuries, one

resulted in the death of a civilian. The results of the reports were categorized by the function of

the smoke alarms. The smoke alarm categories were; failed, none present, operated, too small of

a fire to activate, and undetermined. The category of undetermined includes both unknown

function and undocumented on the NFIRS.

Of the 68 fire incidents that resulted in 87 civilian casualties, 21 of those incidents had

smoke alarms either failed or were not present. This represents 31% of the total incidents where

the occupants did not have functioning fire alarms. (Edwards, 2013) Colerain has five fire

stations protecting its 58,499 residents occupying 43.5 sq.ml. Fire districts 102 and 103 did not

have fire casualties in the last ten years. District 25, Zone A represented 33% of the fire

casualties. District 26, Zone E represented 23.8% . District 109, Zones B and C each


18/87


represented 9.5% of the fire casualties which resulted in the last ten years in Colerain Township

Ohio.

From the year 2008 until 2013, there were 228 fires in Colerain Township that

were classified as being “interior” building fires. Of the 228 building fires reviewed, 32% of

these incidents had either an absence of smoke detectors or a failure of a present smoke detector,

a failure rate was usually between 30%-50% of detectors that were not present. (Edwards, Yearly

Fire Incidents Report, 2013) Colerain Township is divided into five districts. These five

districts are broken down into 29 separate zones. The results of the five year, building fire,

search shows that the following fire zones, of the five districts, have the highest incident rates of

the 228 building fires: District 102, Zone A has 2%; District 103, Zone A has 4%; District 109,

Zone B has 6%; District 25, Zone A has 19%; District 26, Zone E has 12% of the total fire

incidents (Edwards, Yearly Fire Incidents Report, 2013).

When comparing the incidents of casualties along with the incidents of interior

building fires, there are common factors. District 25 Zone A, District 26 Zone E, and District

109 Zone B had higher incidents of casualties and interior building fires. These three fire zones

have a high risk of fire and or casualty.

District 25 Zone A coincides with the Census Bureau as being census tracts 207.41 and

207.42. The area can be geographically defined as the neighborhood within Colerain Ave,

Springdale Rd, Pippin Rd, and Compton Rd,. The population of this zone is 7469. The average

household income is $47,500. (American FactFinder, 2010) Most of the adults in this area are

high school graduates without further formal education. This area can be considered working

class families with limited resources and funding.


19/87


District 26 Zone E coincides with the Census Bureau as being census tracts207.05 and

207.62. The area can be geographically defined as the neighborhood, south of District 25 Zone

A, Colerain Ave, Compton Rd, Pippin Rd, and Banning Rd. The population of this zone is 6211.

The average household income is $53,500. The educated majority is that of a high school

graduate. This area can be considered working class families with limited resources and funding

similarly found in District 25 Zone A.

Districts 102 Zone A and 103 Zone A are very similar in make up. They each represent a

population of about 1500. The average household incomes are $73,000 to $95,000. The

majority are high school graduates, yet the percentage of college graduates increase slightly.

Data shows that there were no casualties in these areas in the last ten years. Also these two

zones only represent a combined total of 6% of the building fires.

District 109 Zone B is the furthest most northern part of Colerain Township. It has a

population of about 3,000 people. The average household income is $63,000. The education is

primarily that of high school graduates. (American FactFinder, 2010)

In summary, it can be argued that the values of a smoke alarm are so obvious that we

routinely have discussions with our elementary schools. Smoke alarms save lives and reduce

property damage due to early notification to the occupant and then fire departments. The

contrary to that statement can also be said. In the absence of “working” smoke alarm, the risks

of injuries and fatalities due to a fire is substantially higher when compared to occupancies with

functioning alarms. The majority of homes have functioning smoke alarms, yet about 70% of

fatalities occur in homes without functioning smoke alarms.


20/87


Statistically, the ionization and photoelectric smoke alarms are the only two types that are

used in residential occupancies. The Ionization is most often the alarm of choice to be installed

in homes, it is after all the most inexpensive. Research shows two major areas of concern with

the ionization detector. First, it has a high failure rate in a smoldering fire. Second, the

increased number of a nuisance alarms create an environment where occupants disable or

remove the alarm, placing themselves into an elevated likelihood of casualty or death due to

fires. The photoelectric, while is more expensive, is more reliable in a smoky environment and

does have a lower nuisance alarm rate. Cheaper is not always better, photoelectric should be

recommended by Colerain Township.

After analyzing our firehouse software and NFIRS, it was determined that our two major

high hazard areas were District 25 Zone A and District 26 Zone E. These two districts have the

majority of structure fire incidents along with the higher percentage of nonfunctional smoke

alarms. The census bureau shows that these two districts also coincide with being the least

amount of formal education and lower family income when compared to the other districts and

zones within Colerain Township.

PROCEDURES

The purpose of the applied research project was to develop and or implement a smoke

alarm program for Colerain Township to reduce injuries or deaths from fires in the residential

occupancies. The research methods utilized were historical and evaluative research for the

research questions. The overall research associated with this ARP was an action research

method.

The development of this project began while in preparation for the Executive Analysis of

Community Risk Reduction course taught at the National Fire Academy in March of 2013. This


21/87


author analyzed demographics as they related to the community of Colerain Township, Hamilton

County Ohio. The primary source of research materials for community make-up was found on-

line at the United States Census Bureau. An advanced search of data such as population,

education, household income, was performed on the American Factfinder portion of the Census

Bureau web site.

Discussions with Captain Mark Walsh, fire safety inspector with Colerain Township,

provided additional insight into the current controversy of smoke alarm technologies and the

varied research and endorsements. The recent actions, taken by Chief Bruce Smith of Colerain

Township Fire Department, to cease in the participation of the distribution of smoke alarms to

the residents, caused concern of increased risk of injuries and or death due to the lack of a smoke

alarm safety program.

A subsequent literature review was conducted at the request of this author to Captain

Mark Walsh in March of 2013. Articles and research from fire service trade associations and fire

service research and education establishments were presented. An online search of organizations

such as the National Fire Protection Association, Environmental Protection Agency, and general

online searches using Google were preformed to access current and relevant material as they

relate to residential smoke alarms.

The National Fire Incident Reporting System and Firehouse Software programs were

accessed and searched to analyze fire injuries, deaths, and smoke alarm information as they

relate to interior building fires within Colerain Township. Most of the research in this area came

from the Firehouse Software version 7.2. To duplicate the data, one would open the software,

click onto the “reports” tab, click onto the “NFIRS incident reports”, followed by clicking onto

the highlighted “NFIRS incident reports”. The data was filtered by four subcategories: time


22/87


frame of incident, basic page 1, NFIRS 3 structure fire report, and NFIRS 4 civilian casualties

report.

The criteria and focus of the materials reviewed were pertinent to the Colerain Township

geographic area along with being relevant and focused to the research as it relates to this ARP.

The materials also needed to be as relevant as possible. While it can not be argued that having a

lower number of injuries and fatalities from fire incidents is a goal of the fire service, it does

create limitations to the amount of data that can be extracted and analyzed for this authors ARP.

RESULTS


What were the associated risks of not having smoke alarms? Not having functional

smoke detectors can contribute to a decrease in the amount of time a person has from the

discovery of the fire until the interior conditions are beyond that of a survivable environment.

According to the report, Smoke Alarm Response and Tenability, “The primary goal of a smoke

alarm is to provide adequate warning to occupants before conditions become untenable in a fire”.

In theory when smoke goes across the sensor of a smoke alarm, the alarm then activates giving a

warning to occupants to vacate the building. In the absence of a smoke alarm, smoke is allowed

to continue to build up in the confined environment of a structure. This smoke build up creates a

situation where “reduced visibility is often considered as a mechanism that slows occupant

egress…for which an occupant may stop attempting to egress”. (Christopher Mealy, 2011)

Smoke alarms also give early notification of fires to allow occupants time to escape the heat that

increases in a structure. Imagine if you were asleep while a fire is developing a floor below you.

The heat would rise to your level and possibly block your path of egress. On page 3 of Smoke

Alarm Response and Tenability it states that 120 degrees Celsius is the threshold for tenability.


23/87


At 120 degrees Celsius, 428 degrees Fahrenheit, a person can tolerate this exposure for 7

minutes.

The increased risk of death due to residential fires was remarkable in comparison to the

percentage homes without smoke alarms. It is astonishing that 39% of all fire fatalities are

related to the 4% of homes that do not have smoke alarms. The value of a working smoke alarm

can also be seen in the fact that another 30% of fire fatalities occur in 20% of the homes that

have some non-functional smoke alarms. (Ahrens, ND) The totality of the smoke alarm issue is

that people are approximately 300% more likely to die in a residential house fire without

working smoke alarms than of a home with a functioning smoke alarm.


Of the two common smoke alarms sensors, ionization and photoelectric, what does

Colerain Township recommend for their residences? Much of the research work performed by

Texas A&M University has been referenced and duplicated throughout the United States in

recent years. Marty Ahrens has also contributed a significant amount of research and effort in

the assessment of ionization versus photoelectric smoke alarms. Colerain Township

recommends the use of photoelectric smoke alarms. While the smoke alarms are marketed for

different types of fires, smoldering and flaming fires, on average the photoelectric outperforms

the ionization smoke alarm. In many studies it was shown that during a smoldering fire, the

photoelectric smoke alarm could activate 12-30 minutes faster than the ionization smoke alarms.

The ionization smoke alarms are marketed for the flaming fire, yet it has been shown to activate

just seconds before the photoelectric smoke alarm. When comparing the seconds versus minutes

faster, the photoelectric smoke alarms seem to give the residents much more advanced warning

of potentially deadly environments in the home. The ionization sensing technology has a higher


24/87


incidence of false, nuisance, alarms than the photoelectric. The occurrence of nuisance alarms

was the main reason for people to remove the batteries from smoke alarms, or removing the

smoke alarm altogether, thus making the resident more susceptible to death in a residential fire.

Colerain Township recommends the photoelectric smoke alarms be utilized in residential

occupancies.

On October 1, 2012, this author attended a presentation by Kidde. Kidde is one of the

larger smoke alarm manufacturers. Ms. Carmel Leek, Regional Sales Manager of Kidde Fire &

Security, gave a presentation on the newer ten year lithium battery smoke and carbon monoxide

alarms. The Kidde company, realizing the dangers of battery removal in alarms, is marketing

their “hassle free” smoke alarm. Ms. Leek confirmed that none of the newer “hassle free” alarms

have an ionization sensor, they are all photoelectric. During the presentation Ms. Leek was

quoted as saying: “these eliminate nuisance alarms” and “wants to see a push for photoelectric

alarms”. During discussions of ordinances requiring photoelectric alarms, she stated that these

ordinances were “very commendable”. (Leeks, 2013)


What area, within each of the five fire districts, had a high risk of fire injuries or

death? During the time from January 1, 2003 through January 1, 2013 there were 87 civilian

injuries that resulted from 69 building fires. (Edwards, Civilian Casualties by Incident, 2013) Of

the 87 listed injuries, one resulted in the death of a civilian. The results of the reports were

categorized by the function of the smoke alarms. The smoke alarm categories were; failed, none

present, operated, too small of a fire to activate, and undetermined. The category of

undetermined includes both unknown function and undocumented on the NFIRS.


25/87


Of the 68 fire incidents that resulted in 87 civilian casualties, 21 of those incidents had

smoke alarms either failed or were not present. This represents 31% of the total incidents, where

the occupants did not have functioning smoke alarms. (Edwards, Civilian Casualties by Incident,

2013)

Colerain has five fire stations protecting its 58,499 residents occupying 43.5 sq.ml. Fire

districts 102 and 103 did not have civilian fire casualties in the last ten years. District 25, Zone

A represented 33% of the fire casualties. District 26, Zone E represented 23.8% . District 109,

Zones B and C each represented 9.5% of the fire casualties which resulted in the last ten years in

Colerain Township Ohio.

From the years 2008 through 2012, there were 228 fires in Colerain Township that were

classified as being “interior” building fires. Of the 228 building fires reviewed, 23% of the

building fire incidents did not have a smoke alarm present. During the same five year period,

9% of the building fire incidents had a failure in the smoke alarm. This resulted in 32% of these

incidents where the occupants did not have an early warning of a deadly environment. (Edwards,

Yearly Fire Incidents Report, 2013) The results of the five year, building fire, search shows that

the following fire zones, of the five districts, have the highest incident rates of the 228 building

fires: District 102, Zone A has 2%; District 103, Zone A has 4%; District 109, Zone B has 6%;

District 25, Zone A has 19%; District 26, Zone E has 12% of the total fire incidents (Edwards,

Yearly Fire Incidents Report, 2013).


26/87


2008-2012 Smoke Alarm Activation

The total of fire incidents, during the five year period, that had smoke alarms fail in

addition to the incidents where there was an absence of smoke alarms represents 32% or 73 of

the fire incidents.

The total of fire incidents, during the five year period, that were large enough, where

smoke alarms activated represented 34% or 77 of the fire incidents.


27/87


The total of fire incidents in 2012 that had smoke alarms fail in addition to the incidents

where there was an absence of smoke alarms represents 42% or 21 of the fire incidents.

The total of fire incidents, that were large enough, where smoke alarms activated

represented 22% or 11 of the fire incidents.


28/87







29/87







30/87







31/87



where there was an absence of smoke alarms represents 37% or 17 of the fire incidents. The total

of fire incidents, that were large enough, where smoke alarms activated represented 23% or 11 of

the fire incidents.

As the fire companies canvass the high risk targeted areas of District 25 Zone A

and District 26 Zone E, Those with older ionization smoke alarms will have them replaced with

the photoelectric smoke alarms provided by the fire department. With the limited resources of

the department, we are not able to replace or install smoke alarms in every room of every

residence. When we encounter a home that has either a missing smoke alarm or an ionization

alarm, we shall install one photoelectric smoke alarm on each floor. The occasion will be used

as an educational opportunity for the occupants. In order to further assist the occupants, we shall


32/87


provide them with coupons for smoke alarms purchases at Lowes and Home Depot home

improvement stores.

There is a great need for proper documentation of smoke alarms distributed. The crews

installing the alarms shall document data such as; address of home, location of installed detector,

and date of installation. The Washington State Study showed that 20% of installed ionization

smoke alarms were inoperable within months due to nuisance alarms. Only 5% of photoelectric

alarms were disabled by the residents. (Committee, 2009) A time of no less than six months

should pass after the installation of a photoelectric smoke alarm, at that time a inspection should

occur at the residence. The data collected from the follow up inspection should produce data

showing how many, or what percent, of the photoelectric smoke alarms were disabled and why.

Those residences that already have photoelectric smoke alarms installed should have

positive reinforcements. For those that are providing their families with the utmost in fire alarms

should be rewarded. Coupons redeemable for local restaurants and other establishments that

sponsor this program can be disseminated to the public. Many of the local businesses support

Colerain Township public safety educational programs. A few of these businesses offering

rewarding coupons for food and or services would be; Firehouse Subs, Larosa’s Pizza, Gold Star

Chili, and Quaker Steak and Lube. When people are rewarded for their positive safety, they will

get positive reinforcements. This will assist in our marketing of the educational program.

Along with educating the public so that individuals can make a positive change. We are

also making positive changes in our local fire codes. We have been educating our elected

officials with the need for photoelectric smoke alarms. We have drafted code changes that

require all newly built occupancies to have photoelectric smoke alarms. The newly drafted fire

code will also require all rental properties to change to photoelectric smoke alarms. Colerain


33/87


Township is not the only jurisdiction in Ohio to address the problem with code changes. Other

jurisdictions in Ohio have adopted single station photoelectric smoke alarms. These cities or

townships are Shaker Heights, Chagrin Falls, Brooklyn, Mayfield Village, Mooreland Hills,

Lynhurst and the City of Cincinnati for all rental properties. (Dean, 2013)

The public information officers within Colerain Township Fire Department will keep the

general public informed of our smoke alarm program. Various photos of our fire fighters

canvassing the neighborhoods will be posted on social media sites that the fire department

utilizes such as Facebook, Twitter, and fire department website. The local media outlets will be

informed and updated through news releases. The Northwest Press, a local publication, will

have informational guest columns written for dissemination to the public. Correspondences with

the owners of rental property within Colerain Township will be in the form of mailed

documentation explaining the requirements of landlords.

DISCUSSION / IMPLICATION

There is very little discussion needed on the associated risks of not having a smoke alarm

in the home. Both the White Paper Home Smoke Alarms and Other Fire Detection and Alarm

Equipment and the Smoke Alarm Presence and Performance in U.S. Home Fires, both indicate

that the absence of a working smoke alarm accounts for almost 70% of all fire fatalities.

The results of this ARP is very similar to other studies. It was determined that in the

analysis of building fires from 2008 through 2012, Colerain encountered a 9% failure rate of

smoke alarms. The same study showed that 23% of the incidents had no smoke alarms present.

If we look at the Abstract of Smoke Alarm Presence and Performance in U.S. Home Fires it was

reported that nationally “smoke alarms were present but failed to operate in 9% of the reported

fires” (Ahrens, ND) It was also reported that 31% of the reported fires had no smoke alarms

present. While it is reported that nationally there was a higher percentage of fires without smoke


34/87


alarms present, it is worth noting that the five year analysis had 24% of building fires where the

smoke alarms were listed as “undetermined”. The undetermined category could account for a

slight change in the percentage of smoke alarm presence and or activation.

On page seven of the Smoke Alarm Presence and Performance in U.S. Home Fires, it

states that two-thirds of fire deaths in the residential occupancies occurred without the protection

of a working smoke alarm. The ten year analysis of civilian casualties for Colerain show that

there was a single fatality, there was no working smoke alarm present. It is noted that a true and

fair comparison can not be done with data showing a single event. However, it is also worth

asking the question of “had there been a working smoke alarm”, could this single fatality have

been prevented?

When we mention that people need an early warning for fire incidents, many times we do

not take into account of “all” people. People in general need as much advanced warning of

smoke and or fire. Consider the reaction and escape time of those that are slower due to age,

younger and older. There are many people that may have some disabilities, be it mental or

physical. The disabled in residential occupancies are common. To put their unique situation in

perspective when compared to a healthy adults reaction and escape time, keep in mind that

Andrew K. Pantelis’s research paper, titled The Impact of Alcohol Consumption on Fire Egress

Behavior, showed that being under the influence of alcohol can substantially increase the amount

of time for a person to react to smoke alarms. Could one not draw an inference of an intoxicated

persons reaction time with that of a person that has slowed perception or physical abilities due to

age or disabilities? The presence of smoke alarms will give “all” people advanced notification

and alarm of fire conditions. Thus giving them the increase in time from the discovery of fire

conditions to that of exiting the building.


35/87


In the same study produced by Marty Ahrens, it states on page eight that in 62% of the

fires in which battery operated smoke alarms were present, yet did not operate, it was because

the batteries were missing or disconnected. When questioned about why occupants removed or

disabled the batteries, the common reason given was due to “nuisance” alarms, or false alarms.

In the July 2009 NFPA report, the nuisance alarm was addressed. In the Washington State study

of 757 homes, the rate of ionization smoke alarms being disabled was 4 to 1 in comparison to

photoelectric smoke alarms. Unfortunately in my study I was unable to conduct an interview to

ascertain the reasons for disabled alarms in Colerain.

Why not recommend a dual sensor smoke alarm, thus protecting against a flaming fire

and from a smoldering fire? When we review the Pilot Study For Nuisance Alarms, it is

discovered that the combination sensor smoke alarm has occurrences of a false, or nuisance,

alarm at an even higher percentage that the ionization smoke alarm technology. (intern), ND)

The implications of this ARP is that smoke alarms must be in all occupancies to give the

best chance of survival through an early warning of fire conditions. As important as it is to

ensure smoke alarms for everyone, it must be the proper alarms. It is apparent that smoke alarms

with the ionization sensors are the least reliable. They have a higher incident of false or nuisance

alarms. They are prone to delayed responses in smoldering fires, by as much as 15-30 minutes

after photoelectric alarms activate. In general they give a false sense of security to occupants.

The refusal to participate in the Red Cross’s smoke alarm program is the appropriate one.

Colerain Township Fire & EMS should not be part of a program that gives false sense of security

or faulty equipment to their residents. The Colerain Township

An additional item noteworthy of discussion would be the words of Kiddie Smoke

Alarms. In an email received from Adrian Butler, of the World Fire Safety Foundation, Kiddie


36/87


describes aspects of their newer “Worry-Free” smoke alarms. A very interesting thing is that in

their overall product line features, Kiddie states, “Only smoke alarms with a photoelectric smoke

sensor programmed to reduce nuisance alarms” (Butler, 2013) are sold as the “Worry-Free”

smoke alarm. Why not an ionization smoke alarm? Can they not make ionization sensor alarms

that minimize “nuisance” alarms?

This study presents overwhelming evidence of a need for a smoke alarm program

targeted specifically at two response zones within Colerain Township. There are two response

zones, District 25 Zone A, and District 26 Zone E, that represent 58.8% The same two zones, out

of 29, represents 31% of the total interior building fires within Colerain Township. Any smoke

alarm project that is undertaking by this author or the Colerain Township Fire & EMS should be

started within the highest risk area.

RECOMMENDATIONS

What is Colerain Township Fire & EMS to do about our dilemma? Our dilemma is not

handing out less than reliable smoke alarms with the inability to purchase large quantities of

smoke alarms for citizens. The first step will be public education. Instead of simply

understanding why people are disabling their smoke alarms, we need to educate the public as to

why the smoke alarm is activating. It has become apparent to this author that most of the non-

fire service public do not have the knowledge of the two different types of smoke alarm sensors

on the market. Public education needs to be an active role in getting people to change to a more

reliable smoke alarm. Colerain has utilized social media sites such as twitter, facebook, and our

fire department web site to educate the public to the risks associated with ionization smoke

alarms and the benefits of the more reliable photoelectric smoke alarms. In addition to social

media this author has written an article as a guest columnist in the local newspaper and given


37/87


interviews with the local television news media. The use of social media has presented us with

the ability to reach more people while using less of our budget.

Future endeavors will incorporate mass mailings of public safety announcements.

Valpak coupons is a local mailing that mass mails coupons to residential homes. Valpak has

divided their mailing areas into “zones”. Each zone consist of 10,000 residences. At a price of

$150 per zone, or 10,000 homes, our fire department is able to get our public safety message

printed and mailed. We will begin with a smoke alarm message. Then a different message will

be sent out on a quarterly basis. This marketing “partnership” will bring businesses and the fire

department together while getting vital safety information to the community. It benefits the fire

department by having thousands of homes delivered tailored safety messages, while providing

the business sponsor with advertisement at a rate of less than 50% cost of the standard rate.

One limitation with this marketing program is that is does not deliver to our identified

high hazard district. 25. This is due to low economy and return on investment for the Valpak

company. In order to combat this and get equal education for the residents, we will need to

canvass the area with fire personnel and educational materials. Very simply firefighters going

door to door with flyers and educational handouts.

The public service announcements and neighborhood canvassing will be a positive

change. It will engage our citizens in conversation and allow us feedback about their concerns

and reintroduce the residents to their fire service.

Financial limitations prevent the local fire departments from purchasing large quantities

of photoelectric smoke alarms for distribution to the public. On May 1, 2013 the Colerain

Township Fire & EMS was given a $1,000 credit to be used at the local Meijer’s store. The

$1,000 has been appropriated for the smoke alarm program to purchase photoelectric smoke


38/87


alarms. These alarms are to be placed on the fire apparatus for disbursement to the public as

deemed necessary by the emergency response crews. This is the first securing of outside

donations and funds for the program. Additional sponsors and monies will need to be

appropriated to continue with an adequate supply of photoelectric smoke alarms.

A future partner in protection will the International Association of Firefighters Local

3915, Colerain Career Firefighters. They are willing to contribute monies to worthwhile

educational programs. Local 3915 has authorized the disbursement of $500 to purchase

additional photoelectric smoke alarms upon the distribution of the current supply of smoke

alarms obtained through the Meijer’s original donation. There is potential to increase future

funding for this project. There are many community based fraternal organizations that are more

than willing to contribute, these groups are; The Knights of Columbus, The Masonic Lodge,

Moose Lodge, Citizens Fire Academy, etc.

How will we follow up to see if this program is beneficial and working? The

short term goal would be to conduct follow up inspections of homes that have our photoelectric

smoke alarms installed in them. The follow up inspections should occur at six month and 12

months post installation. This information will give us insight as to how many alarms have been

altered by the occupants and why. The long term evaluation would take several years. This

would be to collect data as to civilian fire injuries and or fatalities. The goal would ultimately be

to significantly reduce the occurrences of civilian fire injuries, allow time for occupants to exit

the home during fire conditions while it is still tenable, and to ultimately reduce fire loss with a

quicker response from the fire department by early notification of the occupants of smoke.

The final goal of this project would be the passing of an ordinance that requires all newly

built, or significantly renovated, structures to have photoelectric smoke alarms installed. The


39/87


ordinance would also have provisions for multi-family rental units to phase out the less reliable

ionization smoke alarms for the installation of photoelectric smoke alarms on a sliding time

scale.


40/87


REFERENCES

American FactFinder . (2010). Retrieved March 1, 2013, from United States Census Bureau:

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

Texas A&M University Study . (2011, February 11). Retrieved April 02, 2013, from The World Fire Safety

Foundation: http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org/texasaandm.html

Ahrens, M. (ND, ND ND). Smoke Alarm Presence and Performance in U.S. Home Fires. Retrieved April 1,

2013, from NFPA.org:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/Foundation%20proceedings/Smoke_Alarm_Presence_an

d_Performance_in_US_Home_Fires-Ahrens.pdf

Bukowksi, R. W., Peaconk, R. D., Averill, J. D., Cleary, T. G., Bryner, N. P., Walton, W. D., . . . Kuligowski, E.

D. (2007, December). Performance of Home Smoke Alarms. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from

National Institute of Standards & Technology:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire07/PDF/f07063.pdf

Burn Survior Throughout The World Inc. (N.D., N.D. N.D.). United States Fire Statistics. Retrieved March

26, 2013, from Burn Survivor: http://www.burnsurvivorsttw.org/fsafety/usstats.html

Butler, A. (2013, September 16). Worry-Free.

Christopher Mealy, A. W. (2011). Smoke Alarm Response and Tenability. Baltimore: Huges Associates,

Inc.

Committee, N. 7. (2009, July 01). TASK GROUP ON SMOKE DETECTION FOLLOW-UP REPORT . Retrieved

April 02, 2013, from NFPA.org:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/Research/FinalReportTaskGroupSmokeDetectionFollow

Up.pdf

Council, P. F. (2006, April). WHITE PAPER Home Smoke Alarms. Retrieved March 27, 2013, from

USFA.FEMA: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/white-paper-alarms.pdf

Dean, D. (2013, May 14). (D. Edwards, Interviewer)

Edwards, D. (2013, April 09). Civilian Casualties by Incident. Colerain Township, Ohio, USA.

Edwards, D. (2013, April 14). Yearly Fire Incidents Report. Colerain Township, Ohio, USA.

EPA, U. (2012, June 27). Ionization Technology . Retrieved April 02, 2013, from United States

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_ion.html

EPA, U. (2012, June 27). Photoelectric Technology . Retrieved April 02, 2013, from United States

Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/smoke_photo.html


41/87


Grosse, L., DeJong, J., & Murphy, J. (2011, February 24). Texas A&M Univestity Study . Retrieved March

27, 2013, from World Fire Safety Foundation:

http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org/texasaandm.html

intern), A. L. (ND, ND ND). PILOT STUDY OF NUISANCE ALARMS. Retrieved April 08, 2013, from

Consumer Product Safety Commission: http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/98715/smokealarm.pdf

Leeks, C. (2013, October 01). Kidde Smoke Alarms. Cincinnati, Ohio.

Pantelis, A. K. (2008). The Impact of Alcohol Consumption on Fire Egress Behavior. Emmittsburg: National

Fire Academy.


42/87


Appendix A


43/87



44/87



45/87



46/87



47/87


Appendix B


48/87



49/87



50/87



51/87



52/87



53/87



54/87



55/87



56/87



57/87



58/87



59/87



60/87



61/87



62/87



63/87



64/87



65/87


Appendix C

2012 Smoke Alarm Activation Summary

Street Zone Detector Function

Day 102 A None PresentGosling 102 A Operated

Blue Rock 103 A None Present

Blue Rock 103 A None Present

Blue Rock 103 A Undetermined

Green Springs 109 A Operated

Kemper 109 B None Present

Pippin 109 B None Present

Sudbury 109 B Undetermined

Hazelcrest 109 B Undetermined

Waldent Glen 109 C Operated

Berthbrook 25 A Failed

Arborwood 25 A None Present

Springdale 25 A None Present

Birchway 25 A Not Documented

Pippin 25 A Operated

Springdale 25 A Operated

Colerain 25 A Operated

Springdale 25 A Too small to activate

Adair 25 A Undetermined

Marker 25 A Undetermined

Bevis 25 D None Present

October 25 D Operated

Hanois 25 F None Present

Wenning 25 G None Present

Yuba 25 G None Present

Yuba 25 G Undetermined

Pindale 25 G Undetermined

Coogan 25 G Undetermined

Coogan 25 G Undetermined

Chippenham 25 H Failed

Wilson 25 H Undetermined

Crestland 25 H Undetermined

Owl Creek 25 J None Present

Orchardhill 26 A Failed

Galbraith 26 B Operated

Fireshade 26 B Too small to activate

Acre 26 C None Present


66/87


Colerain 26 C None Present

Nandale 26 C Operated

Cheviot 26 C Undetermined

Blue Rock 26 C Undetermined

Blue Acres 26 C Undetermined

Jonrose 26 E Failed

Beckys Ridge 26 E None Present

Pippin 26 E None Present

Woodhill 26 E None Present

Regal 26 E Operated

Planet 26 F Operated

Planet 26 F Undetermined

Total Function Total Zone

4 Failed 2 102 A

17 None present 3 103 A

11 Operated 1 109 A

2 Too small 4 109 B

16 Undetermined 1 109 C

10 25 A

2 25 D

1 25 F

6 25 G

3 25 H

1 25 J1 26 A

2 26 B

6 26 C

5 26 E

2 26 F


67/87


Appendix D


Street Zone Detector Function

Dunlap 102 C None PresentPoole 103 A Undetermined

East Miami River 103 B None Present

Swissvale 109 A Operated

Overdale 109 A Undetermined

Pippin 109 B Operated

Haverknoll 109 B Operated

Spaulding 109 B Too small

Walden Glen 109 C Operated



Walden Glen 109 C Undetermined

Walden Glen 109 C Undetermined


Colerain 25 A Operated

Arborwood 25 A Operated

Darbi Dew 25 A Undetermined

Amberway 25 A Undetermined

Pippin 25 A Undetermined

Thimbleglen 25 B Undetermined

Colerain 25 B Undetermined

Niagara 25 D None Present

Wuest 26 A Operated

Rocker 26 C Operated

Colerain 26 C Operated



Cheviot 26 D Operated

Compton 26 E Failed

Galbraith 26 E Failed

Jonrose 26 E None Present

Sheldon 26 E Undetermined


68/87



2 Failed 1 102 C

5 None Present 1 103 A

14 Operated 1 103 B1 Too Small 2 109 A

10 Undetermined 3 109 B

5 109 C

6 25 A

2 25 B

1 25 D

1 26 A

4 26 C

1 26 D

4 26 E


69/87


Appendix E


Street Zone

Detector

Activation

Brehm 103 A Undetermined

Country Village 103 C Operated

Springleaf 103 C Too Small

Springlake 103 D Too Small

Crest 109 B Operated

Wincanton 109 B Undetermined

Amberway 25 A None Present

Niagara 25 A None Present

Amberway 25 A Operated

Amberway 25 A Operated



Eddystone 25 B Operated

Chagrin 25 C Operated

Town Terrace 25 D Failed

Niagara 25 D Operated

Storm 25 D Too Small

Pebble Valley 25 E Operated

Cornwall 25 G Undetermined

Roosevelt 25 H None Present

Galbraith 26 B FailedGalbraith 26 B None Present

Sandy 26 B None Present



Georgianna 26 B Operated

Rocker 26 C Failed



April 26 C Operated

Cheviot 26 C OperatedNandale 26 C Undetermined

Colerain 26 C Undetermined

Oak Creek 26 D Operated

Apple Valley 26 D Too Small

Lookover 26 E None Present

Lookover 26 E None Present


70/87


Tripoli 26 E Too Small

Blue Lark 26 F None Present

Uranus 26 F Operated

Mars 26 F Operated


3 Failed 1 103A

10 Not Present 2 103 C

16 Operated 1 103 D

5 Too Small 2 109 B

7 Undetermined 6 25 A1 25 B

1 25 C

3 25 D

1 25 E

1 25 G

1 25 H

6 26 B

7 26 C

2 26 D

3 26 E3 26 F


71/87


Appendix F


Street Zone Detector Activation

Day 102 A UndeterminedGosling 102 A Undetermined

Dunlap 102 C Undetermined

Brehm 103 A Too Small to activate

Springdale 103 C Undetermined

Springwater 103 D Operated

Desert Gold 103 D Too Small to activate

Gravenhurst 109 A Failed

Chestehill 109 A Operated

Overdale 109 A Operated

Pippin 109 A Operated

Haverknoll 109 B Operated

Waldon 109 B Operated



Pippin 25 A Failed

Colerain 25 A None Present

Burgess 25 A Operated

Colerain 25 A Too Small to activate

Aries 25 A Undetermined

Red Skin 25 D None Present

Philknoll 25 D None Present

Pippin 25 D Operated

Town Terrace 25 D Operated

Windswept 25 D Too Small to activate

Hollis 25 D Undetermined

Holly Glen 25 D Undetermined

Redskin 25 D Undetermined

Colerain 25 E Operated

Field Glen 25 G Operated

Trinidad 25 G Operated

Sacremento 25 G Undetermined


Ash hill 26 A Failed

Galbraith 26 B Failed

Firshade 26 B Failed

Cheviot 26 B Operated



72/87


Blue Acres 26 C None Present

Banning 26 C Operated

Rocker 26 C Operated

Banning 26 C Operated

Blue Acres 26 C Too Small to activate

Bay Towne 26 D Operated

Weiss 26 D Operated

Regal 26 E Failed



Barthas 26 E None Present

Clara 26 E None Present


Galbraith 26 E Operated

Rock Acre 26 E Operated

Gila 26 E Operated

Regal 26 E Operated

McGill 26 E Undetermined

Colerain 26 E Undetermined

Bluelark 26 F Undetermined


6 Failed 2 102 A

9 Not Present 1 102 C25 Operated 1 103 A

5 Too Small to Activate 1 103 C

13 Undetermined 2 103 D

4 109 A

2 109 B

2 109 C

5 25 A

8 25 D

1 25 E

4 25 G1 26 A

4 26 B

5 26 C

2 26 D

12 26 E

1 26 F


73/87


Appendix G


Street Zone Detector Activation

Squirrelsnest 102 C OperatedBlue Rock 103 A Too small to activate

Country View 103 A Undetermined

Austin Ridge 103 C Too small to activate

Daleview 103 C Too small to activate

Overdale 109 A Undetermined

Retford 109 B None Present

Hazelcrest 109 B Operated

Crest 109 B Undetermined

Ontario 25 A Failed

Aries 25 A Failed

Marino 25 A Failed

Arborwood 25 A None Present

Marino 25 A None Present


Colerain 25 A None Present

Niagara 25 A None Present

Rumford 25 A Operated

Arborwood 25 A Operated

Niagara 25 A Operated

Manhatten 25 A Operated

Pippin 25 A Too small to activate

Niagara 25 A Too small to activate

Springdale 25 A Undetermined

Niagara 25 A Undetermined

Colerain 25 B Operated

October 25 D Failed

October 25 D Failed

Jackfrost 25 D Failed

October 25 D None Present

Moonflower 25 D Operated

Bentbrook 25 D Operated

Seasons 25 D Undetermined

Capstan 25 D Undetermined

Pippin 25 F Operated

Paprika 25 F Too small to activate

Schon 25 G Too small to activate



74/87


Roppelt 25 J Undetermined

Banning 26 C None Present

Grange 26 C Operated

Hillary 26 C Too small to activate

Boleyn 26 C Undetermined


Windy Way 26 E None Present

Blanchetta 26 E None Present

Trelawney 26 E Too small to activate


6 Failed 1 102 C

11 None Present 2 103 A

11 Operated 2 103 C

9 Too small to activate 1 109 A

10 Undetermined 3 109 B

16 25 A

1 25 B

8 25 D

2 25F

2 25 G

1 25 J

4 26 C

4 26 E


75/87


Appendix H


76/87



77/87



78/87



79/87



80/87



81/87


Appendix J

Ohio

Smoke detectors don't save lives, at least not the most

commonly used detectors

By Darian Edwards Correspondent 1st Responder Newspaper Story Number 102710102 Disclaimer: This article is a direct street report from our correspondent and has not been edited by the

1st Responder newsroom.

Smoke detectors don't save lives, at least not the most commonly used detectors.

In the early 1970's less than 10% of the homes had smoke detectors, back then 8 people died forevery 1,000 fires that occurred. Today 95% of homes have smoke detectors, however 8 people stilldie for every 1,000 fires that occur. 70% of fire-related fatalities, in Hamilton County, are due tosmoke inhalation, not the heat or flames. 75% of fatalities occur during sleeping hours.

Smoke detectors are built with one of two sensors in them. One sensor, Ionization, is designed torecognize and alarm in the presence of a flaming fire. It detects the small particles that aresuspended in the air (ionized electrons), these particles are so small you may not even be able to seeor smell them. The Ionization detectors utilize a very small amount of a radioactive isotope thatemits Alpha radiation. (Don’t worry, unless you are playing with the detector or inhaling the airdirectly off of it, the radiation is harmless) The second sensor, Photoelectric, is designed to recognizeand alarm in the presence of a smoldering fire. The Photoelectric senses the smoke that is producedfrom smoldering fires or from items such as synthetic materials. The smoke disrupts a light sensorinside the detector and activates the alarm.

In a flaming fire, such as a kitchen fire, an Ionization detector goes off about 10 seconds prior to aPhotoelectric detector. In a smoldering fire, such as electrical or careless smoking, the Photoelectricdetector can activate 10, 15, 20, even 30 minutes before the Ionization detector goes off, if it evenactivates at all. Studies have been done by the National Institute of Standards and Testing, National

Fire Protection Association, and Texas A&M University, all of which confirm similar findings thatIonization smoke detectors are failing us. Their test results have been shown on multiple televisionshows and posted on various websites such as Youtube. Many states have banned, or are currentlydebating the banning of, detectors that use Ionization technology. Many of the courts have passed judgment against the detector manufacturers for faulty Ionization detectors.

The overwhelming majority of the population has Ionization detectors in their home. Why?, because

it is the cheapest in cost. A Photoelectric detector costs about twice what the Ionization sells for.Therefore the Ionization detector is the cheaper and more economical choice. How do you knowwhich one you have? Look on the back of the detector, if you see an "I" or "radioactive" then its anIonization detector. A Photoelectric detector will have a "P" on it.

Please provide your family with the proper safety equipment. We buckle our kids into child seats andseat belts; our cars have airbags and bicycle helmets are in common use now. So why not provide

your family with the proper smoke detector? Replace your ineffective Ionization detectors with thePhotoelectric detectors.

Call your local fire department for more information.Colerain Township Fire & EMS 513-825-6143

http://www.1rwn.com/


82/87



83/87


Appendix K


84/87



85/87



86/87


Appendix L

ORDINANCE PROPOSAL OF PHOTOELECTRIC SMOKE ALARMS AND DEVICES

FOR HEARING IMPAIRED PERSONS

Owners of all dwellings shall install a minimum of one smoke alarm in each sleeping area and

adjacent to a sleeping area in each dwelling unit. At least one additional smoke alarm shall be

installed on each additional story of the dwelling, including the basement, but excluding any

crawl space or unfinished attic. In multifamily dwellings and two-family dwellings, smoke

alarms shall be installed in all stairwells on each level, in all common space and hallways, and

wherever else the Colerain Township Fire Department deems necessary. Smoke alarms shall be

listed with an approved testing agency and shall be installed in a manner and location consistent

with the manufacturer's instructions.

Where a dwelling is occupied by a person who is deaf or hearing impaired, a smoke

alarm shall be installed by the owner which provides a visual or vibrating signal sufficient to

warn the deaf or hearing impaired individual when activated.

Any newly constructed dwelling shall have hard-wired smoke detectors, with battery

backup, installed as required by the Ohio Building Code and the Ohio Fire Code. When

alterations, repairs or additions requiring a building permit occur and the value of such work is

more than 50% of the assessed valuation or when all or most of the electrical wiring is being

replaced, hard-wired smoke alarms, with battery backup, shall be installed. Wiring shall be

permanent and without a disconnection switch, other than those required for over current

protection.

Rental properties, be they residential, condominium, townhouse, or apartments shall

replace the older smoke alarms with new photoelectric smoke alarms. When a rentable unit is

vacated, prior to renting this unit again, photoelectric smoke alarms must be installed. In

properties that have 12 or less units, the owner has one year from date of notice of this ordinanceto have all photoelectric smoke alarms. Properties that have more than 12 units have two years

from notice of ordinance to have all photoelectric smoke alarms.

Existing single and multi-family dwellings with hard-wired smoke alarms mus

developing a smoke alarm program for colerain township

Documents