Excellence in Fire Protection

Seminar on Plumbing-based fire protection

Download Seminar flyer doc(209 5K)

My seminar, "Plumbing-based Fire Protection for 1- and 2-Family Dwellings," debuts on February 6th at the Region III Institute of the International Code Council (www.iccsafe.org) in Chaska MN. Please download and forward the flyer to potential sponsors.

 The goal of the 1-day seminar is to:

• Show how plumbing-based sprinklers cost 40 percent less than stand-alone and so-called multipurpose systems
• Clear up the confusion over multipurpose piping and the need for backflow preventers
• Document that Journyman plumbers trained on the International Residential Code (IRC) or NFPA 13D are qualified to install residential sprinklers
• Show how and why manifolded grids are the most effective and efficient method of distributing water to plumbing fixtures and sprinklers
• Demonstrate the installation advantages of multi-path water distribution for plumbing and sprinklers
• Teach how to read hydraulic calculations for manifolded grids, both for plumbing fixtures and sprinklers
• Give tips on reviewing plans and inspecting manifolded grids

 The term "multipurpose" piping was first introduced in the 1996 edition of NFPA 13D. The same edition added requirements for multipurpose pipe, pipe material, minimum diameter and the number of flow paths to sprinklers.

It was clear to me that these systems had hydraulic and cost advantages over traditional residential sprinkler systems. However, sprinkler contractors reacted by spreading misinformation about combined plumbing/sprinkler systems, particularly about manifolded grids.  I have come to realize that their opposition is driven by business interests instead of logic.

Home run plumbing systems are less expensive than traditional plumbing. The flexible pipe eliminates the couplings, tees and elbows required for CPVC or copper.  They eliminate the problems of pressure spikes and temperature shocks that can occur on traditional plumbing systems.

Along with their hydraulic and cost advantages for plumbing, these systems also account for  around 40 percent of the pipe needed for sprinklers.

 The definition of multipurpose piping is quite vague. It is so vague that some interpret it to include sprinkler systems that are isolated from the potable water by backflow preventers. Why? Because the water in the sprinkler pipe comes from the same water service pipe serving the plumbing.

Confusion reigns. Which multipurpose systems require backflow preventers and which do not? Should backflow preventers be single-check, double-check, testable double-check or reduced-pressure zone? Issues like these, along regulatory barriers to licensing plumbing contractors, continue to make residential sprinklers more expensive than need be.

 The seminar will show code officials and inspectors how to review plans for manifolded grids, and what things to look for during plan review and inspection. For example, making sure that two sprinklers in the same compartment do not share more than a single connection are not in the IRC or NFPA 13D, and no one is informing code officials about them.

 Lastly, the seminar explains how water flowing through a manifolded grid yields a closely balanced system – an asset for plumbing fixtures and sprinklers alike. For more information, click on the link to the seminar flyer at the top.

 

 

 

 

 

Why the residential sprinkler initiative has stalled: The tyranny of mindsets

When the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) made residential sprinklers mandatory for new 1- and 2-family homes, sprinkler advocates rejoiced that their years of efforts had paid off. But since that time, most state and local governments have opted to either prohibit sprinklers or make them an option in an appendix chapter.

No one who participated in the IRC sprinkler campaign expected anywhere near a nationwide acceptance of the new code requirements. We all realized that the anti-sprinkler camp, namely the home builders and their sycophants, would push back to eliminate the sprinkler provisions from state and local adoptions. I personally thought that acceptance by one out of four jurisdictions was a reasonable forecast. That has not been the case. At this point, even the most optimistic supporters of residential sprinklers must admit that the code change has yielded smaller than expected results.

Who is to blame?

The anti-sprinkler camp spends a lot of money lobbying against the sprinkler requirements, and they continue to win most battles. However, I do not lay the entire blame for our losses solely at their feet. In my opinion, another part of the problem lies within the sprinkler supporter camp.

The home builders' key argument against sprinklers is cost. Yet many sprinkler advocates play into their hands by failing to promote proven ways that residential sprinklers much less expensive.

We have all seen highly inflated or wild estimates of installation costs. I and my fellow advocates continue supplying facts that refute those claims. But, we cannot deny that sprinklers may increase the cost of home construction. I say "may" because I have witnessed installations that were very inexpensive - and in some cases cost-neutral. What frustrates me is the number of sprinkler advocates who unknowingly keep sprinkler costs higher than necessary. They do so by

1), accepting the status quo and 2), failing to promote cost-saving installation methods.

The status quo to which I refer is the traditional stand-alone system sprinkler system. Such systems require a separate pipe system to supply the sprinklers and are isolated from the potable water by backflow preventers. The additional pipe and backflow preventers add to construction costs. Also, some backflow preventers require annual testing, which adds annual maintenance costs to the higher installation costs.

Plumbing-based sprinkler systems meet or exceed installation standards and much less expensive, are forty percent less, to be specific. Here is why. Unlike stand-alone and so-called multipurpose systems, plumbing-based systems integrate the sprinklers into the cold water distribution pipe. For one thing, that eliminates an additional set of pipe devoted to sprinklers. For another, the plumbing pipe constitutes forty percent of the sprinkler pipe. And since all of the water on these systems is potable, they eliminate backflow preventers.

I am monitoring a home being built in the southwest US where the builder is installing plumbing-based sprinklers. My analysis of the complete system, the plumbing plus sprinklers and additional pipe, shows that the sprinklers are going in for around forty percent less than stand-alone or multipurpose systems.

Putting it another way, adding sprinklers to the plumbing system gets you forty percent of the way home on sprinkler costs.

Plumbing-based sprinklers begin with a "home run" plumbing system. The plumber installs a 1-inch manifold at the water service and runs 1/2 inch flexible pipe to each plumbing fixture. This design requires more pipe than traditional "Trunk and Branch" plumbing systems (which, by the way, look just like "Tree" sprinkler systems). However, Trunk and Branch systems (and Tree sprinkler systems) use rigid pipe. They require couplings to connect the "sticks" of pipe, and elbows or tees every time the pipe changes direction or elevation. Analysis data show that the additional pipe on home run systems results in a much lower net costs because it eliminates the material and labor costs for couplings, elbows and other fittings on rigid pipe systems (www.toolbase.org/pdf/techinv/pexhomerunplumbing_techspec.pdf).

In addition to lower material and labor costs, the installation by one subcontractor instead of two reduces overhead for home builders, not to mention the coordination problems with an additional sub. Those factors, and no annual tests for backflow preventers add up to significant savings for home builders and home owners. So why are sprinkler advocates in general ignoring these cost saving systems in favor of the status quo?

The tyranny of mindsets

This might sound like I am implying that some sprinkler advocates intentionally oppose ways to make residential sprinklers more affordable. I am not. My fellow advocates are utterly devoted to protecting homes with sprinklers. The problem lies with their mindsets.

 "Mindset: A fixed mental attitude or disposition that predetermines a person's responses to and interpretation of situations."

Mindsets are powerful and difficult to overcome, and I speak from personal experience. It is not that we are necessarily resistant to change or new technology. It is that when we learned about sprinklers, we developed mindsets about them. Just ask anyone who was around when NFPA 13 accepted hydraulically calculated systems as alternatives to traditional pipe schedule systems.

The following story illustrates my point. I have used this in other posts, but it is a great example of the power of mindsets.

Fire chiefs typically underestimate peoples' knowledge about how fire departments work. The general belief is that a fire truck pulls up at a fire, some firefighters rush in and the fire goes out. I learned about that perception when I was doing a station location study for my city. In the project office, we had mounted a large map of the 80 sq. mile area. We used it for attaching templates of first-due areas, second-due and so on.

The city engineer assigned to the project sat in on many meetings where we analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of potential station sites – specifically a potential site's impact on second- and third-due company travel times.

Several months into the project, and after countless discussions emphasizing multi-unit response, the engineer stared at the map and blurted out, "Now I get it! You need more than one engine to handle a structure fire!" I had assumed that our lengthy discussions had made that clear, but he maintained the mindset of most civilians. He saw fire stations as just another neighborhood service. Building a new subdivision? Add a fire station along with the local grade school and other neighborhood services. His mindset that fire stations were a neighborhood service acted like a set of blinders. As a result, he just could not see fire stations as part of a larger network.

The path forward

Today, mindsets are preventing sprinkler advocates from adopting cost effective alternates to the old ways of doing things. To the degree that those mindsets block or slow the adoption of the IRC sprinkler requirements, they are just as pernicious as the anti-sprinkler camps' baseless claims. But as I noted, overcoming the tyranny of mindsets is a difficult process. Two things will help sprinkler advocates to "take off the blinders."

1. Regulatory change

In many states, licensing regulations promote the status quo by limiting sprinkler installations to sprinkler contractors. There are no valid reasons why plumbing contractors cannot install sprinklers as part of the plumbing system. Journeyman plumbers go through the same classroom training as sprinkler fitters. All they need is a short class on the sprinkler installation standards, namely NFPA 13D. If you want to learn more about a particular state's licensing regulations for residential sprinklers, let me know. I maintain a database of current sprinkler regulations in each state.

The same state licensing regulations that cover installers also cover designers and field supervisors. They too can be huge barriers. For example, I know of one state that requires a PE stamp on all sprinkler plans. Such a regulation may have been reasonable back in the day before sprinklers for 1- and 2-family homes, but is now a huge barrier. In areas with small starter homes, the cost of a PE stamp could exceed the cost of the sprinklers.

Another state requires that contractors employ individuals certified by the National Institute for Certification in Engineering (NICET) as Level IV technicians. Several other states require NICET Level III certification. However, my analysis of the NICET requirements reveals that none of the training above Level II mentions sprinklers in 1- and 2-family homes. Again, such regulations may have been reasonable in the era before residential sprinklers, but they are now barriers.

In this era, manufacturers who offer plumbing-based sprinklers also do the designs. Thus, regulations requiring that contractors employ designers are still another barrier.

2. Education

To date, learning about plumbing-based sprinklers has been limited to manufacturer training. Other training sources purport to address multipurpose systems, but there are two problems with that. For one, only two "multipurpose" systems are actually plumbing-based sprinkler systems. For another, the design portion of the training is limited to stand-alone systems.

At the risk of self-promotion, I have developed a one-day seminar that describes plumbing-based sprinkler systems, shows how they are designed and how to inspect them for approval. You can download the flyer at www.fdexcellence.com. Look for my post titled "Seminar on Plumbing-based Fire Protection."

In closing, I never expected plumbing-base sprinklers to be an overnight success. However, I underestimated the challenge of overcoming the tyranny of mindsets. I hope that this post will cause more sprinkler supporters to take the blinders off and promote less costly systems.

 

Why is selling fire protection a “hard sell?” – Reason Two

In my post titled "Why is selling fire protection a hard sell? – Reason One," I discussed one key reason why fire chiefs are failing to defend staffing and equipment levels - the general belief that a single fire apparatus in a neighborhood provides adequate fire protection. The average taxpayer does not understand the need for several pumpers, ladder trucks and other emergency vehicles rushing to a small house fire when the fire is stopped in just a few minutes. Civilians observing a fire scene do not understand the coordination and teamwork that results in an effective response. To the uninitiated, all those firefighters and apparatus up and down the street look like confusion.

To help fire chiefs explain the need for multiple units arriving on a fire scene in short order, I suggested that they use the concept of critical fireground tasks. Those are the tasks that firefighters must perform simultaneously or in a high coordinated manner in order to stop life and property loss without undue risk to crewmembers.

But getting public policy makers to understand the need for timely multiple-unit responses is only one of two key challenges. The other is proving to policy makers that they are getting value for their money.

Let's say that a fire chief tells the city council that the city needs five stations, five pumpers, two ladders and 35 firefighters on duty for adequate fire protection. City council members can count apparatus and firefighters as well as fire chiefs. However, those numbers say nothing how much safer people will be with them, nor how much at risk they will be without them. Other municipal services competing for the same tax dollar describe their services in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. They can demonstrate how much more (or less) bang-for-the-buck the city will get for a proposed budget amount. Policy makers want to know what results they can expect for the money, and other public services have the answers. Fire chiefs who cannot provide similar data are at a distinct disadvantage. Just like other public services, they need to quantify the quality of fire department results.

 Output versus results

Many fire chiefs think that they are already describing results. For example, they will insist that things like average response times and annual fire loss are doing just that. But such data measure output and do not describe how effective (or deficient) the results of their outputs are. In order to talk in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, fire chiefs need to cite the quality of outcomes instead of outputs - and there is a big difference between them.

To understand the difference, consider the experience of the US auto industry in the late 20^th century. In those days, automakers described their productivity in terms of the number of cars produced per man-hour. But they failed to realize something that their Japanese competitors had learned; Customers were more interested in the quality of the results than the numbers produced per day or week. Ironically, the Japanese manufacturers learned that lesson from an American professor whose advice the US auto industry had ignored. But that is a story for another time.

Japanese automakers made product quality their first priority, and then sought ways to improve quality in the most cost-efficient manner. They measured results like the number of defects per car, the number of repairs needed over time, etc. They then analyzed those numbers and continually looked for more efficient ways to reduce defects. Those practices yielded high quality cars and trucks at attractive prices.

We all know the rest of the story. Japanese models gained market share because they were higher quality and cost less to own. US automakers finally adopted the same measures and are just now catching up with the competition.

Results and units of production

Automakers are in the business to produce cars and trucks. Each car or truck is a unit of production, or a "result" of a factories output. Fire departments' "production," if you will, is reducing life and property loss when a fire occurs. Each fire incident is a unit of fire department production. It is important to note that automakers do not determine the quality of a unit of production by just production line outputs. They also include design, engineering and workforce training outputs. That is because the reason for a defect can be traced beyond production lines. For example, analysis may find that a particular defect can be remedied by a design change, a change in training, etc.

Similarly, fire departments must include all of their outputs when analyzing how to improve the quality of their results. While suppression may be considered to be the "production line" of public fire protection, fire departments cannot accurately evaluate the quality of results unless they include the outputs of plan review, inspection and public education.

Fire chiefs who rely upon data like annual life and property statistics are missing a key point. Such aggregated data say something about the quality of fire department results, but fail to identify how and where to improve services. To illustrate my point, I'll use a baseball analogy that I have used on other posts.

 Who won the 1960 World Series?

In the 1960 World Series, the New York Yankees had a total of 55 runs and the Pittsburgh Pirates had 27. If we were to treat these totals like fire chiefs use annual fire statistics, we would conclude that the Yankees won the World Series. They did not. Although the Pirates had fewer aggregated runs, they won four of the seven games as shown below.

 

Game	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	Runs	Total Wins
Pitts	6	3	0	3	5	0	10	27	4
NY	4	16	10	2	2	12	9	55	3

 Output measures like aggregated baseball runs and annual property loss do not indicate effectiveness – or what impact a baseball team or fire department had on the outcome of each ball game or fire incident.

 Measuring fire incident results

 Baseball teams score each game with an event that can occur in every game and is easily measurable. Every time that a runner reaches home plate, a run is credited to their team. Fire departments can "score" each fire in a similar manner. There is an event that can occur in every fire, is easily measurable, and significantly affects life and property loss. It is called flashover. It is easy to measure. If flames extended beyond the room of origin, flashover occurred. The event is significant because a fire stopped at the pre-flashover stage fire is less of a threat to lives and property.

Life loss is another fire event that is easily measured. Since saving lives and limiting property loss are the central goals of public fire protection, it is reasonable to use both events to determine whether a fire incident was, in baseball parlance, a "Win" or a "Loss." The measures allow fire chiefs to accomplish several things. They can:

 - Quantify results like other public services

-  Make valid comparisons to prior year's results

-  Analyze each incident and identify the factors that led to success or failure

-  Budget for activities that promise to improve results in the most efficient manner

 Success v. failure

The benefits of analyzing each fire incident instead of aggregating data are far-reaching. For illustration, consider the two following questions. Why would a fire that self-extinguished at pre-flashover before firefighters arrived be counted as a success? Conversely, why would a fire that had gone to flashover before being reported count as a failure?

The reason is because manual suppression is only one of several factors that lead to those results. In the fire that did not reach flashover, residential fire sprinklers may have been the reason. They stop fires before flashover and keep the room of origin tenable to life. The results of such fire incidents are much fewer lives lost and significantly less property damage. Thus, the incident would be scored as a success. That same successful result could also be due to code enforcement (e. g., housekeeping, separation of fuel packages) and/or public education (quick action and proper response of occupants).

In the case of a fire that went to flashover before units arrived, the loss can be attributed to the lack of sprinklers, a breakdown in code enforcement and/or deficient education. Going back to the comparison with automakers, analyzing each unit of production allows managers to identify deficiencies in the whole range of outputs and find ways to improve results in the most efficient manner.

Are flashover and life loss reasonable measures?

Fire chiefs may question the reasonableness of those measures because many fire departments are not equipped and staffed to stop fires at pre-flashover. I believe that they are because fire departments have other means of achieving those goals. For example, they can require sprinklers in a new residential development to make up for their deficiencies in manual suppression.

Over time, fire departments that effectively use all of their resources instead of relying upon manual suppression will have better "Win-Loss" records than neighboring departments that do not utilize built-in suppression, good building and fire codes, well-trained plan reviewers and inspectors, and targeted fire safety education. What is more, they will achieve it at a lower cost. That translates into higher effectiveness and higher efficiency. To me, that is excellence in fire protection.

Why selling fire protection is a hard sell – Reason One

Note: The tables in this post did not transfer from my Word file as I expected. You can download the Word file and see the tables as originally created here Download Why is selling fire protection a hard sell, Reason One

Reports of firefighter layoffs and station closings appear almost daily. Each case denotes another fire chief's failure to convince policy makers of the need for sufficient staffing. Why is selling fire protection such a "tough sell?" I see two principal reasons.

    1. The public's ignorance of an adequate fire department response.

     2. Fire chiefs' reliance upon output measures instead of results.

I had intended to discuss both reasons in a single post, but there is simply too much material. This post discusses the first reason, and I will follow up with a post on the second.

 Public ignorance of the need for multiple apparatus

Fire chiefs typically underestimate peoples' knowledge about how fire departments work. The general belief is that a fire truck pulls up at a fire, some firefighters rush in and the fire goes out. I learned about that perception when I was doing a station location study for my city. In the project office, we had mounted a large map of the 80 sq. mile area. We used it for attaching templates of first-due areas, second-due and so on. The city engineer assigned to the project sat in on many meetings where we analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of potential station sites – specifically a potential site's impact on second- and third-due company travel times.

Several months into the project, and after countless discussions emphasizing multi-unit response, the engineer stared at the map and blurted out, "Now I get it! You need more than one engine to handle a structure fire!" I had assumed that our lengthy discussions had made that clear, but he maintained the mindset of most civilians. He saw fire stations as just another neighborhood service. Building a new subdivision? Add a fire station along with the local grade school and other neighborhood services. Like practically all civilians, he did not understand the core element of effective manual fire suppression – performing several tasks either simultaneously or in a highly coordinated manner.

The following table lists the typical tasks required for an initial attack on a pre-flashover fire in a 1-family, single story detached home.

  

Task	Personnel	Company
Attack line	2	1st engine
Search/ rescue	2	Ladder company
	2	1st/2nd engine
Ventilation	2	2nd engine
Safety crew	2	As assigned
Pump operator	2	1st and 2 nd engine
Water supply	1	2nd engine
Command	1	BC

 I call those tasks "critical fireground tasks" because:

 

• They are all critical to the mission (saving lives and limiting property loss)
• They must be performed simultaneously or in a highly coordinated manner

Here are two examples of what I mean. As a crew prepares to enter the structure with the attack line, other firefighters must prepare to ventilate. If ventilation is performed too soon, the fire will greatly increase and be a bigger threat to any occupants who may be trapped. If performed too late, opening the attack line will blow fire and smoke back at the firefighters operating it. Simultaneous performance is critical to those tasks being effective and not unduly increasing the risks to the attack line crew. Water supply is an example of a highly coordinated task. The attack line is typically supplied by the booster tank on the first-due engine, but the water will run out if more is not made available within about three minutes. Failure to quickly establish a water supply will interrupt the fire attack and put the attack crew at even greater risk.

The number of critical fireground or mission-critical tasks will vary by jurisdiction. The tasks, firefighters and apparatus listed above may be sufficient for suburban homes with lots of space around them. In densely populated neighborhoods, additional tasks such as laddering, stretching lines and exposure protection can easily double the numbers of firefighters and apparatus that are needed to arrive closely after the first-due company..

The engineer's reaction prompted me to add a "Fire Protection 101"segment to my presentation to show why a house fire called for 13-15 firefighters arriving quickly. The educational part worked. Not only did the council quickly choose the next station site, but also decided to reopen a station that had been closed shortly before I came on board. The response area templates showed that the closure left much of the downtown without adequate second- and third-due companies.

The next table shows how staff levels, apparatus and travel times might increase as the structural fire risk increases. The greater the number of critical tasks, the higher the numbers. Again, the numbers will vary from community to community.

 

Risk level	Staff	Units	1st due	All due
Maximum	24 FF's 2 chiefs	4 engines 2 ladders	3.0	5.0
High	16 FF's 2 chiefs	3 engines 1 ladder	3.5	5.5
Moderate	12 FF's 1 chief	2 engines 1 ladder	4.0	6.0
Low	8 FF's 1 chief	1 engine 1 ladder	5.0	7.0
Minimum	4 FF	1 engine	6.0

 

Also keep in mind that the underlying assumption is that this applies to an initial response to a pre-flashover fire.

A note on the risk categories. My "Low" risk level includes non-structural and detached, uninhabited structures like outbuildings. The "Moderate" level covers detached 1- and 2-family homes and apartment buildings where all parts are accessible by pre-connected attack lines. Apartment building beyond that reach, of those needing heavier ground ladders (and thus more fighters to raise them), get bumped into the "High" level.

The "Maximum" risk level contains all structures where occupants will need assistance, such as nursing homes and hospitals. Buildings that are protected with automatic sprinklers get placed into the next lower risk category.

Next up – Reason number two why selling fire protection is a hard sell. Meanwhile, please share your thoughts!

 

The role of output measures

My other posts point out why output measures are not valid indicators of fire department effectiveness. However, they do play a valuable role in measuring efficiency, detecting deficiencies and improving output.

Output includes individual tasks like donning SCBA and team tasks like connecting to a water supply or raising a ladder. In order to use such measures, fire departments need to:

• Identify the steps that must be included in performing each task in a safe manner
• Select the minimum number of firefighters required for each team task
• Establish reasonable elapsed times for performing each task in an efficient and safe manner

Output measures are related to outcomes. When analyzing why a fire incident went beyond flashover or resulted in a death, fire departments can review output activities to spot any deficiencies that may be related to the outcome. For example, did a hydrant hookup that went beyond the benchmarked time contribute to a fire going to flashover? What is needed for that team to improve and meet the benchmark time, e. g., re-training?

Output measures can also be used to establish credibility with community leaders and the public. Timed drills on fireground tasks show that the department is constantly monitoring efficiency and correcting efficiencies. An example is a failure to perform a ladder raising drill in the benchmarked time, which may indicate several things. For one, it might show that the team members are making mistakes that increase performance time. Some additional training might be the only need for improvement. For another, it might identify a firefighter who is losing the ability to perform the task. The department can then determine if rehab will restore the firefighter's ability or not.

Excellence in fire protection

The term "excellence in fire protection" raises two questions. First, what does excellence mean? Second, how does one measure it?

Defining excellence

Defining excellence in fire protection is quite simple. Organizations that produce products or services achieve excellence by producing those products or services at the highest quality and the lowest cost. In other words, the most effective organization with the lowest cost wins.

For example, vehicle manufacturers produce cars and trucks. The quality of their product is rated by measures like the number of defects per unit and reliability, or the time span until repairs are needed. Fewer defects per unit and longer time without repair equate to higher quality. If two manufacturers have the same quality rating, the one with the lower costs would be considered the better producer.

Fire departments provide a service, namely public fire protection. (Many of them provide additional services such as emergency medical response, but their primary mission is reducing life and property loss from fires.) The goal of public fire protection is to save lives and property. If two comparable fire departments have similar life and property loss records, the one that achieves that level of quality at a lower cost would be considered the better service provider.

Measuring excellence in fire protection

For vehicle manufacturers, each car or truck is a unit of production and each unit can be evaluated for quality. Two quality indicators were noted above. For fire departments, each fire incident is a unit of service and each can also be evaluated for quality. Since the goal of public fire protection is to reduce life and property loss from fires, each incident can be evaluated by those two measures. The life loss measure is obvious. Measuring property loss is not as direct, but there is a good correlate - flashover. It is well-documented that fires that reach flashover result in magnitudes more property loss than fires that are stopped before flashover occurs. Also, it is very easy to determine whether flashover occurred. If flames extended beyond the room of origin, the fire is considered to have reached flashover.

Some might argue that these two measures of effectiveness are unfair. After all, many fires reach flashover and kill occupants before fire departments arrive at the scene. That is true, but fire departments have other means of saving lives and limiting property loss. It is well-documented that effective public education, quality code enforcement and built-in fire suppression are very effective in saving lives and stopping fires before they reach flashover. My post titled "How fire risk and mitigation are related" explains this in more detail.

The bottom line is this. Fire departments that effectively use public education, code enforcement and built-in fire protection will have better life and property safety records than those that rely mainly upon manual suppression, and they will achieve those results at a lower cost. That is excellence in fire protection.

Sustainable Fire Protection

Sustainable Fire Protection

 

Introduction

Fire protection is a vital core service, and is often a city's second highest budget item (behind police protection). As budget crises deepen, more city managers and politicians are looking to trim fire department costs. Since personnel costs make up the lion's share of fire department operating expenses, that means staff reductions.

At the same time, fire departments are faced with the continuing reduction in the number of fire calls. In an era when medical calls outnumber fire calls by 3:1, civilians question the need for large pumpers, ladder trucks and the firefighters who man them. The problem is this. While the frequency of fire calls is relatively low and getting lower, fires will still occur that threaten to grow into conflagrations. When they do occur, the only effective way to stop them is with a rapid response of multiple apparatus and firefighters.

I believe that many fire departments can resolve this dilemma without layoffs and closed stations, but it requires that they adopt new staffing models.

Traditional fire department staffing

The traditional way of staffing fire departments is effective, but effectiveness comes at a cost. The staffing model, which has not changed since the 19^th century, calls for enough fire stations to allow pumpers to reach fire scenes in a few minutes. Most stations have a minimum of one pumper, staffed by firefighters who are on standby around the clock. Many stations also house ladder trucks and other special equipment, with crews of firefighters for each apparatus.

Networks of stations with 24/7 staffing make fire department response very reliable, but several factors make them more expensive than non-public safety services. For one thing, fire suppression is labor-intensive. The National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA) Standard 1710, the nationally recognized standard for fire department operations, states that at least 14 firefighters are needed to suppress a house fire. That number can double in urban cities, where homes are closer together.

Meeting that standard requires a dense network of stations and several firefighters per apparatus. Per NFPA 1710, the minimum staffing for pumpers is four firefighters and five on ladder trucks. Thus, a response to a house fire would require two pumpers, one ladder truck and one chief officer. The standard also sets maximum travel times. The first apparatus must arrive within in a four minute travel time, with the remaining apparatus arriving two minutes after that.

Another cost factor is the need to fill positions when firefighters are on vacation or ill. As firefighters gain seniority and accrue more vacation time, filling empty positions requires more personnel or higher overtime costs.

Pension costs are a third factor. Firefighters retire at age 50-55, much younger than non-public safety personnel. As a result, adequately staffed fire departments have heavier pension burdens.

The next section describes how fire departments with career firefighters can reduce personnel costs without cutting the level of fire protection. A later section will show how the model can work for volunteer and combination fire departments.

A sustainable staffing model

Several US fire departments that are on or near college campuses staff their apparatus with a mix of career firefighters and college student/firefighters. The University of Alaska Fairbanks Fire Department is one example.

The fire department protects the UA Fairbanks campus and surrounding off-campus areas with two stations. It staffs the stations with 11 career personnel and 40 student/firefighters. The firefighters work 24-hour shifts followed by 48 hours off duty. The student/firefighters are enrolled as full-time students and must carry at least 12 credits per semester. When absent from duty for classes, they arrange for off-duty student/firefighters to fill in.

The fire department pays the student/firefighters hourly wages and gives them free housing. The pay is much less than career firefighter wages, but enough to pay their college expenses. Since most of the time on each 24-hour duty shift is spent on standby, student/firefighters have adequate time to study. Career firefighters fill the leadership positions, so the student/firefighters always work under the supervision of experienced personnel.

When student/firefighters graduate from college, the department replaces them with incoming students. Each spring, candidates undergo a physical fitness test and interviews to determine their suitability for the job. The selected candidates spend two months during the summer break training as firefighters and emergency medical technicians (EMT's). They are then assigned to shifts and begin work in the fall semester.

This staffing model allows the fire department to provide the same (or higher) level of service as non-college fire departments, while greatly reducing salaries and pension burden.

Fire departments need not be on or adjacent to college campuses in order to implement similar staffing models. They can do so by creating public service internship programs.

Public service internships - the basic concept

Fire department public service internship programs would select qualified college-bound students to serve four years as full-time firefighters. In return, the interns would receive free college educations. Preliminary comparisons of career firefighter compensation and intern college expenses show that fire departments could support an intern for one half to one fourth the cost of a career firefighter. In addition to lowering salary costs, the interns would not add to fire department pension burdens.

In regions with one or more colleges nearby, interns would attend classes and serve as firefighters at the same time. They would be free to attend any college within a reasonable commute that offers competitive tuition rates. This greatly increases the pool of candidates. For example, the Minneapolis-St. Paul (MN) metropolitan area has ten colleges and universities within a one-hour commute of dozens of career, combination and volunteer fire departments. That number should yield a substantial pool of intern candidates for several fire departments.

At the end of their service, interns would have college degrees and no education debt. They would also be experienced firefighters, an advantage should they decide to pursue fire service careers

Internship costs

Data on the average cost of college educations and firefighter salaries show that fire departments can support multiple interns for the cost of one firefighter. The median starting salary (including benefits) for firefighters in the US is $60,000.00 ($48,000.00 salary plus 35 percent in benefits). The median annual cost to attend a public college (including tuition and dorm fees) is $12,000.00. Assuming a cost of $3,000.00 per intern for initial training, those costs would support a ratio of up to four interns per one career firefighter.

For interns, the fully-burdened cost estimate includes housing, meals, transportation and living expenses. Fire departments that provide them with free housing could further reduce the fully-burdened cost of internships.

Intern recruitment and selection

The methods for recruitment, training and intern selection will vary by region. In one suggested model, the fire department (or consortiums of fire departments) would begin recruiting college-bound high school Seniors and currently enrolled college students in the spring of each year. The first phase would include recruiting and testing candidates who have been accepted at (or attending) local public colleges within a pre-determined commuting distance. Successful recruits would spend the summer months training to the Firefighter II and EMT certification levels. At the beginning of the school year, successful candidates would be assigned to duty shifts.

Another recruitment/training model would focus on high school students, and would select interns in the following steps:

1. Invite high school students to an orientation meeting and describe the program's objectives, benefits and requirements. The meeting would be open to Freshmen through Senior year students.

1. Invite interested students to participate in the department's physical fitness test. By testing students from all grades, potential interns who do not pass the physical fitness test will learn what deficiencies they need to improve on in order to make cut in their Senior year. The test will also help potential candidates decide if such a physically demanding job suits them.

1. Sign up qualified students to attend evening classes on Firefighter I and EMT during the fall and winter school terms. The extra-curricular training will yield several benefits. For one thing, those who decide that the public service internships are not for them will drop out over time. For another, the fire department trainers can evaluate student progress and suitability for the job.
2. For Senior year students who have passed the firefighter and EMT training/testing, and who have been accepted into a college approved by the department, continue the selection process with interviews and psychological evaluations.

One benefit of this recruitment/training method is that students who are not in the Senior class can decide early on if they have the interest, dedication and ability to perform this public service in return for a college degree. It also gives them time to improve their physical ability.

On duty days, interns would be given time off to attend classes, and then return to work for the remainder of their shifts. Fire departments would have the option of leaving the positions open during their absence or paying off-duty interns to fill the positions. For example, one college fire department pays off-duty student/firefighters $10.00 per hour to fill in for on-duty student /firefighters who are attending classes. On weekends and semester breaks, the interns would be available for their entire 24 hour shifts.

Interns for volunteer departments

With some exceptions, volunteer fire stations are not staffed 24/7. Instead of being on standby at stations like career firefighters, volunteer firefighters carry pagers and respond to their stations from home or work.

Many volunteer fire departments have too few members available during daytime hours. The solutions are limited and daunting. Jurisdictions that are accustomed to the low costs of volunteers will likely chafe at the budget increases needed to hire full-time firefighters. For example, hiring enough firefighters to staff one apparatus with four personnel on a 24/7 basis costs an average of $900,000.00 per year. However, they could staff with interns for much lower costs. Besides the cost advantage, internship programs would solve a management problem created when departments mix volunteers with career firefighters. On many "combination" departments, ownership issues threaten to divide volunteers and full-time firefighters. This would not be a problem with interns because they would work under the supervision of the volunteer officers.

Internship success factors

For internship programs to succeed, city leaders would need to address several core factors.

• Qualified candidates

Interns will be full-time temporary employees, and will be expected to perform at the same level as career firefighters. Cities have many options for adjusting their existing firefighter selection processes to select qualified interns.

• Motivation

Firefighting is not a typical public service program. The dangers and stresses of the job call for individuals who understand what is expected of them, can live in a paramilitary environment, and are motivated to support their fellow firefighters to the nth degree. In my experience, a thorough interview process and psychological assessment can identify candidates who have the right motives for becoming firefighters.

• Retention

Fire chiefs who hire college student firefighters cite turnover as a potential problem for internship programs. Some applicants see the student/firefighter position as a stepping stone. Once they receive their firefighter training, they are apt to search for full-time firefighter jobs and drop out of college once they secure a job.

Fire departments can do several things to increase retention. First, a thorough interview process will help to identify a candidate's motivation for applying. Second, fire departments can set reimbursement policies for interns who leave before completing their commitment. For example, leaving during the first year could require a 100 percent reimbursement of training and tuition expenses. A sliding scale could apply to drop-outs during the rest of the four-year term,

• Leadership

Leadership will be a critical factor in a program's success. In order to remain in the program, interns will be required to perform their fire department duties, maintain passing grades and steadily advance toward graduation. Fire departments will need one or more officers to mentor the interns, monitor their progress and be their advocate to the other department members.

• Sustainability

Internship programs will need a continual supply of recruits to replace interns who complete their public service. Fire departments that operate high school fire cadet programs would have a pool of candidates who have gained knowledge about the job, and have practiced the skills needed to pass the internship entry tests.

How many firefighters does it take to suppress a fire?

An article that I recently wrote for Building Safety Journal speaks to that question. The article is titled "Sustainability is More than Structures," and describes how sustainable homes make for sustainable communities. Energy-conserving homes reduce demands on the water and energy infrastructure. Sprinkler-protected homes reduce the impact on the fire protection infrastructure.

I illustrated the issue with the two following graphics. The first one shows a fire scene requiring manual suppression and the fire department response needed to comply with NFPA 1710, the deployment standard for career fire departments.

The second graphic shows the same house where a sprinkler has controlled (and likely extinguished) the fire. In the majority of cases, a single engine company is adequate for shutting the water, removing debris and replacing the fused sprinkler.

The vast majority of US fire departments cannot comply with the staffing and travel time requirements in NFPA 1710. The economy will rebound and communities will start adding new subdivisions. They should consider how residential sprinklers can lower the demand on their fire departments and add to community sustainability.

Why smoke alarms are not enough

A key argument used by opponents of residential sprinklers is that smoke alarms are sufficient for residential life safety. Sprinkler supporters reply by saying that smoke alarms can only warn occupants of a fire, while sprinklers will control a fire and give occupants time to escape.

That limitation is obviously correct. But both sides neglect another, and perhaps more important, limitation of residential smoke alarms – their reliability. Manufacturers will tell you that smoke alarms experience a three percent annual failure rate. By the time that they are 15 years old, they have nearly a 50-50 chance of failing to operate in a fire. That is why smoke alarm manufacturers recommend replacing them every 10 years.

Per the US Fire Administration, the number of homes with smoke alarms exceeded 90 percent in the 1990's. Some homeowners may faithfully replace the batteries in their smoke alarms, but I suspect that they do not buy new smoke alarms every 10 years. The continued use of smoke alarms that are beyond their life span is a likely factor in why over 50 percent of homes where fires occurred had smoke alarms with batteries installed, and yet failed to operate.

Sprinkler opponents who fail to note the reliability issue are selling a false sense of security to decision makers and the public. Sprinkler supporters need to include the reliability issue when pointing out the limitations of smoke alarms.

Sprinkler bans are bad public policy

Now that the International Residential Code states that new homes must have sprinklers in order to meet the minimum requirements for safeguarding public safety, health and general welfare, home builders are pushing for statewide bans on the requirement.

The home building industry has its own narrow interests at heart. Lawmakers who go along with these short-sighted industry protection schemes overlook the fact that unilateral bans can severely restrict the ability of cities to grow. The following examples describe local situations that statewide bans can do plenty of harm.

City A -

City A allows residential developments in areas with no fire hydrants - if the homes are equipped with sprinklers. If a state law bans requiring residential sprinklers, the developer cannot build any more homes unless the nearest water line – which is two miles away – is extended and hydrants installed.

City B -

City B has required sprinklers in all new homes for years. One of the many benefits has been operating its fire department with far fewer firefighters than neighboring cities. A statewide ban on residential sprinkler ban would require increasing the size of the fire department and thus the city budget.

City C -

City C has hilly areas where only available lots have steep drop-offs, thus making the backs of new homes inaccessible to fire department ladders and hoses. The city has justified building homes there if they are equipped with sprinklers. The city has adopted the same policy for areas where the terrain restricts or slows fire department access. A statewide sprinkler ban would prohibit the city from future residential development.

City D -

City D is a small town that has opportunities to expand with new residential subdivisions. However, its volunteer fire department cannot keep up with the increased demand. New volunteers are difficult or impossible to find. Most of the existing volunteers work out of town, and the city finds itself with little fire protection during long periods of the day. Since residential sprinklers reduce the demand on fire departments by over 50 percent, the city plans to require sprinklers in new homes so it can keep operating with a volunteer department. A statewide ban on residential sprinklers will force the city to hire career firefighters, which will greatly increase its expenses.

City E -

City E wants to build what are called "New Urban" developments in areas now occupied with abandoned buildings. Such developments increase the population density by placing homes nearer to each other and narrowing street widths to make the area more pedestrian-friendly. The changes violate the building code in two ways. First, the code requires wider separations in order to limit the risk of fire spreading from one home to the next. Reducing the separations would require doubling the size of the fire department in order to protect against conflagrations. Second, the current street width requirements are based on the need for fire apparatus to get around each other. Reducing street widths would prevent enough fire apparatus from approaching buildings.

The city code officials concluded that the changes could be allowed if the new homes are protected with sprinklers. A statewide ban would leave the city with the choice of not allowing the new developments, accepting the risk of conflagration in densely populated areas, or doubling the size of the fire department.

I can point to actual cities and towns like the five that are cited above. They exist in every state. State lawmakers who are considering statewide bans on sprinklers need to know how their attempt to help a special interest will harm the future of many of their cities, towns and citizens.

Dealing with water purveyors

When I contacted my water purveyor about replacing my 5/8-inch to with a ¾-inch, the engineer who responded reviewed the costs. The meter and replacement labor would run a few hundred dollars. That seemed reasonable because they have to replace my old-style meter pit as well. The kicker was their "system development fee" of $2500.00.

The theory of system development fees

The purpose of the fee is to fund increases in capacity. It is based on the reasoning that additional customers increase demand, which requires adding new mains, larger storage tanks, more water treatment plants, etc. By levying the fee on new customers, the purveyor avoids placing the burden on existing ones. When an existing customer requests a larger meter, it is assumed that they will also increase demand and thus should pay the same fee as new customers.

The engineer was not up on fire sprinklers, so I gave a short recap of how they reduce the demand for water. In the event of a fire, I explained, my system would use a couple hundred gallons of metered water as opposed to several thousand gallons of unmetered water that the fire department would use. We left it at that. The engineer would discuss it with her superiors and let me know.

Educating water purveyors

The answer I received was disappointing. They justified the fee for the following reason. Although my sprinkler system itself lowered my home's demand on the public water system, a larger meter would enable me to install a lawn irrigation system, which would increase the demand on the system. Therefore, I needed to pay the fee because I could potentially add to the need for increasing capacity.

It was clear from our conversations that the engineering staff was not aware of the value that fire sprinklers provide in reducing demand on public water supplies. They also were largely unaware of how sprinklers can reduce other infrastructure costs, such as narrower roads and smaller cul-de-sac turnarounds just to name a couple. I requested a meeting with the engineering staff so I could explain how the water district could be part of the solution instead of the problems of sustaining viable places to live and work.

They were very open to meeting with me, and definitely wanted to learn more. Coincidentally, they had recently heard about the new requirements in the International Residential Code and figured that they would have to deal with the issues at some time in the future. They saw my participation as helping them become proactive instead of reactive.

Residential Fire Sprinklers 101

My goal at the meeting was two-fold. First, I wanted to provide documentation to back up my statements. I collected a half-dozen documents, some educational and some with data, and placed them into a presentation binder. I also included items I found about how other water purveyors have dealt with the situation. My other goal was to tell the story of residential sprinklers so they would appreciate how valuable they are to life safety. Instead of lecturing from a bulleted list, I highlighted key parts of each document. As I described the content of each enclosure, the highlighted material gave me my talking points.

I kept my presentation short and sweet, and left the binder so they can study the detailed contents. I came away feeling that they see me as an ally, someone who can help them find a practical solution to the problem with system development fees, just as other water purveyors have. It is going to take time and more meetings, but so far so good. I'll continue reporting on this as things progress.