This document was scanned from hard copy to portable document format (PDF)and edited to 99.5% accuracy. Some formatting errors not detected during theoptical character recognition process may appear.

This report may be freely used, duplicated, or publishedin whole or in part, except the photographs, which maynot be reproduced without permission of the owner.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CARD NUMBER-73-600022

I I

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

1730 K. STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 382-7825

May 4, 1973.

The PRESIDENT,The White House,Washington, D.C.

D E A R M R . P R E S I D E N T :

Transmitted with this letter is the final report of the NationalCommission on Fire Prevention and Control.

The report is based on almost 2 years of work by the Commission.We believe it presents the most significant fire safety problems, and thegreatest opportunities for fire loss reduction, in the United States today.The vast majority of the Commission agreed with all fundamental issues.

Over $11 billion of our resources are wasted by destructive fires each year.Additionally, 12,000 people are killed and tens of thousands of persons arescarred physically and emotionally by fire. Recommendations are presentedin this report which, if implemented, will significantly reduce this great toll.

The recommendations emphasize prevention of fire throughimplementation of local programs. This is in keeping with the very natureof the fire problem which is felt hardest at the community level. Additionally,the recommendations emphasize built-in fire safety-measures which candetect and extinguish fire before it grows large enough to causea major disaster.

We know our great Nation has the resources and technology presentlyavailable to lessen the destructive impact of fire. We believe a continuingFederal focus on the fire problem is a necessity. It is the earnest hope of themembers of this Commission that this report will provide helpful guidelinesfor local, State, and national efforts to reduce the life and property lossby destructive fire in the United States.

Sincerely,

RICHARD E. BLAND,Chairman.

CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY MEMBERSJohn W. Davis, Warren G. Magnuson,Congressman, Georgia Senator, Washington

Jerry L. Pettis, Ted Stevens,Congressman, California Senator, Alaska

THE STAFFHoward D. Tipton, Executive Director

Professional Staff

John F. Christian, Deputy Director

Edward K. Budnick, fire protection engineerdetailed by General Services Administration

J. Thomas Hughes, fire protection engineerdetailed by Naval Ship Engineering Center

Eugene M. Sober, P. E. senior fire safety analystJoe Swartz, operations research analyst

detailed by National Bureau of Standards

Anthony E. Neville, writerClayton Willis, director of public affairs

Administrative Staff

Jane Sornberger, administrative assistant

Virginia Harr, secretaryJo Ann Mackey, secretaryPearlie Scott, secretary

Temporary Administrative and Research Staff

David SergeantKenneth RichardsonHoward MarkmanLawrence McGinty

VII

INFORMATION UPDATE

Since AMERICA BURNING was originally published in 1973 some of the statistical informationpresented has become outdated either through actual change, better data, or new methods of estima-tion.

The changes are:

Approximately 6,200 people die in fires in this country each year, includingfire fighters, not 12,000, as stated in the cover letter, and on pages x, 1 and53. (Source: U. S. Fire Administration (USFA) Estimate, Based on theNational Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) Data).

About 100,000 people are injured in fires annually, including fire fighters,not 300,000 as given on pages x, 1. (Source: USFA Estimate, based onNFIRS Data).

Direct property loss is currently estimated at $10,400,000,000 not 2,700,000as given on page 2. (Source: USFA Estimate, based on NFIRS Data).

The cost of treating a severly burned individual can cost well over $100,000rather than $60,000 as given on page 11. (Source: Office of Health CareFinance, U. S. Department of Health & Human Services).

Clothing fire deaths range between 150 and 200 annually, not 3,000 asshown on page 67. (Source: National Center for Health Statistics, U. S.Department of Health & Human Services).

Fire deaths resulting from motor vehicle accidents are estimated at 650 to750 annually, not 4,260 as shown on page 85. (Source: USFA Estimate,based on NFIRS Data).

U. S. Fire AdministrationSeptember, 1989

TABLE OF CONTENTSLetter of TransmittalThe Commissioners.Congressional Advisory Members.The Staff.What This Report is About

Chapter

1 The Nation’s Fire Problem.2 Living Victims of the Tragedy.

The Fire Services3 Are There Other Ways?.4 Planning for Fire Protection.5 Fire Service Personnel,6 A National Fire Academy.7 Equipping the Fire Fighter.

Fire and the Built Environment8 The Hazards We Have Created.9 The Hazards Created Through Materials

10 Hazards Through Design,11 Codes and Standards.12 Transportation Fire Hazards.

Fire and the Rural Wildlands Environment13 Rural Fire Protection.14 Forest and Grassland Fire Protection.

Fire Prevention15 Fire Safety Education.16 Fire Safety for the Home,17 Fire Safety for the Young, Old, and Infirm.

Programs for the Future18 Research for Tomorrow’s Fire Problem.19 Federal Involvement20 What Citizens Can Do,

Minority Report

AppendixesI Public Law 90-259, March 1, 1968

I I Hearing Witnesses.I I I Acknowledgements.IV List of Recommendations.V 1971 Fire Loss Data,

VI Master Plan for Fire Protection, MountainVII Estimated U.S. Fire Research Funds

View, Calif.

PageIIIIVVI

VIIX

111

1727334145

5361717985

9397

105117127

133139147

151

160163166167172173177

IX

WHAT THIS REPORT IS ABOUTThe striking aspect of the Nation’s fire problem isthe indifference with which Americans confront thesubject. Destructive fire takes a huge toll in lives,injuries, and property losses, yet there is no need toaccept those losses with resignation. There are manymeasures--often very simple precautions-that canbe taken to reduce those losses significantly.

The Commission worked in a field where statis-tics are meager, but its estimates of fire’s annualtoll are reliable: 12,000 American lives, and morethan $11 billion in wasted resources. Annual costsof fire rank between crime and product safety inmagnitude. These statistics are impressive in theirsize, though perhaps not scary enough to jar theaverage American from his confidence that “It willnever happen to me.” In a Washington hearing theCommission heard testimony from the parents ofa J-year-old boy who caught fire after playing withmatches. They described the horror of the accident,the anxiety while awaiting doctors’ reports, the longweeks of separation during the critical phases oftreatment, the child’s agony during painful treat-ment, the remaining scars, and the many operationsthat lie ahead. Multiply that experience by the300,000 Americans who are injured by fire everyyear, and consider, as we did, that it could easilyhappen in your own family; then the Nation’s fireproblem becomes very immediate and very fearsome.

During its deliberations the. Commission uncov-ered many aspects of the Nation’s fire problem thathave not received enough attention-often throughindifference, often through ‘lack of resources. Itbecame clear that a deeper Federal involvementwas needed to help repair the omissions and helpovercome the indifference of Americans to firesafety.

We felt strongly that fire prevention and controlshould remain primarily local responsibilities. Localgovernments-through codes and fire safety laws,and through heavy investments in fire departmentpersonnel and equipment-have shouldered the ma-jor burden of protecting citizens from fire andshould continue to do so. Those governments ap-preciate special local conditions and needs morefully than an arm of the Federal Governmentwould be able to do. Roles for the Federal Govern-ment, in the Commission’s view, are appropriatelylimited to lending technical and educational assist-ance to State and local governments, collecting andanalyzing fire information, regulating the flamma-bility of materials, conducting research and develop-

ment in certain areas, and providing financial as-sistance when adequate fire protection lies beyond acommunity’s means.

To the extent these functions are being performedat all, they are scattered among the Federal agencies.The Commission feels there should be an entity inthe Federal Government where the Nation’s fireproblem is viewed in its entirety, and which encour-ages attention to aspects of the problem that havebeen neglected. This same entity would serve as theconduit for the inter-governmental cooperation thatis needed to combat the Nation’s fire problem. Ac-cordingly, the Commission recommends the estab-lishment of a United States Fire Administration inthe Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment where the primary Federal responsibility existswith local government. The US. Fire Administra-tion would not swallow all the ongoing programs ofresearch and action, but would supplement them forthe sake of a more coherent effort to reduce the Na-tion’s fire losses. In this way, the special abilities ofeach Federal agency would be utilized.

The following summarizes briefly some of theaspects of the Nation’s fire problem which the Com-mission studied and which the U.S. Fire Adminis-tration, through encouragement or direct sponsor-ship, could help to solve :• There needs to be more emphasis on fire preven-

tion. Fire departments, many of which confinetheir roles to putting out fires and rescuing its vic-tims, need to expend more effort to educate chil-dren on fire safety, to educate adults through resi-dential inspections, to enforce fire preventioncodes, and to see that fire safety is designed intobuildings. Such efforts need to be continuouslyevaluated, so that the Nation can learn what kindsof measures arc most effective in reducing theincidence and destructiveness of fire.

l The fire services need better training and educa-tion. Training for firefighters and officers rangesfrom excellent, as in some large cities, to almostnon-existent, as in many rural areas. Better train-ing would improve the effectiveness of fire depart-ments and reduce firefighter injuries. Bettereducation provides the key to developing leader-ship for fire prevention.

l Americans must be educated about fire safety.Most destructive fires are caused by the carelessactions of people, largely through lack of concernand ignorance of hazards, Many fires caused byfaulty equipment rather than carelessness could

X

be prevented if people were trained to spot thefaults before it’s too late. And many injuries anddeaths could be prevented if people knew how toreact to a fire, whatever its cause.

l In both design and materials, the environment inwhich Americans live and work presents unneces-sary hazards. The hazards of flames have beenstudied and regulated to some extent, but recogni-tion of the hazards of smoke and toxic gases hascome belatedly. Ironically, efforts to make mate-rials fire-retardant may have increased the lifehazard, since the incomplete combustion of thesematerials often results in heavy smoke and toxicgases. While materials and products that presentunreasonable hazards should be banned, the Com-mission believes the major emphasis should be ona labeling system (to be developed by the Con-sumer Product Safety Commission) for materialsand products, so that consumers, at the time ofpurchase, know what risks are involved. The im-pact of new materials, systems, and buildings onusers and the community should be assessed dur-ing design stages, well before use. Careful analysisand filing of a fire safety effectiveness statementshould permit recognition of faults before tragedystrikes.

l The fire protection features of buildings need tobe improved. There is a need for automatic fireextinguishing systems in every high-rise buildingand every low-rise building in which many peoplecongregate. Economic incentives for built-in pro-tection are not available today and should be pro-vided. Many communities are without adequatebuilding and fire prevention codes, and manynursing homes and other facilities for handicap-ped citizens are without adequate fire protection.Perhaps most important, Americans need to beencouraged to install early-warning fire detectorsin their homes where most fire deaths occur.

l Important areas of research are being neglected.The state-of-the-art in firefighting, in treatment ofburn and smoke victims, in protecting the builtenvironment from combustion hazards, points tothe need for a major expansion of research anddevelopment in these areas. Progress in most ofthese areas is hindered by a lack of fundamentalunderstanding of the behavior of fire and its com-bustion products.To encourage solutions to these problems, the

Commission has made recommendations in this re-port to a number of bodies: the American public,the President, Congress, State and local govern-ments, industries, professional organizations, andagencies of the Federal Government. It has alsooutlined important tasks for the proposed US. Fire

XI

Administration:l to develop a comprehensive national fire data sys-

tern, which will help establish priorities for re-search and action ;

l to monitor fire research in both the governmentaland private sectors, to assist the interchange ofinformation, and to encourage research in areasthat have been neglected;

l to provide bloc grants to States so that local gov-ernments may develop comprehensive fire-protec-tion plans, improve firefighting equipment, andupgrade education of fire service personnel:

l to establish a National Fire Academy for the ad-vanced education of fire service officers and forassistance to State and local training programs;

l to undertake a major effort to educate Americansin fire safety.The Commission has also recommended the re-

inforcement of programs in other agencies, includ-ing: detection and alarm systems for federally as-sisted and insured housing, and built-in protectionloan insurance (Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment) ; extension of burn treatment facil-ities (Department of Health, Education, and Wel-fare) ; burn and smoke research (National Institutesof Health) ; rural fire protection (Department ofAgriculture) ; and further research in the engineer-ing-based technology programs of the National Bu-reau of Standards.

If these efforts are carried out we predict a 5 per-cent reduction in fire losses annually until the Na-tion’s losses have been halved in about 14 years. A5 percent reduction in resource losses alone wouldamount to $350 million in the very first full year,which is considerably more than the annual costsof the projected Federal involvement of $153 mil-lion annually, as discussed in Chapter 19.

T Hhe public members of the Fire Commissionrepresent the Nation’s firefighters, insurers, fireequipment manufacturers, testing laboratories, andother groups in the private sector concerned withreducing the Nation’s fire losses. We reached theconclusion that there must be a significant Federaleffort only after careful consideration of the short-comings of present efforts to reduce fire losses inthe United States.

Many of the Commissioners have devoted theircareers to improving the Nation’s fire record. Wehave become accustomed to public indifference tothe fire problem. But we hold the hope that thisattitude can be changed. It is our wish that thisreport will provide a turning point, by reaching-ifonly indirectly-the conscience of millions ofAmericans.

1THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

Fire! Hundreds of thousands of times a year, thatshout reverberates down hallways or the innerrecesses of the mind as Americans come face toface with one of the most dreaded causes of deathand disfigurement. Ironically, for every Americanwho will confront flames or choking smoke thisyear, there are hundreds who give the threat offire not a moment’s thought, who will continue totake only the slightest precautions to guard againstfire.

Fire is a major national problem. During thenext hour there is a statistical likelihood that morethan 300 destructive fires will rage somewhere inthis Nation. When they are extinguished, morethan $300,000 worth of property will have beenruined. At least one person will have died. Thirty-four will be injured, some of them crippled ordisfigured for life.

Annually, fire claims nearly 12,000 lives in theUnited States. Among causes of accidental death,only motor vehicle accidents and falls rank higher,Most of fire’s victims die by inhaling smoke ortoxic gases well before the flames have reachedthem.

The scars and terrifying memories live on withthe 300,000 Americans who are injured by fire

every year. Of these, nearly 50,000 lie in hospitalsfor a period ranging from 6 weeks to 2 years.Many of them must return, over and over again,for plastic and reconstructive surgery. Many neverresume normal lives.

The price of destructive fire in the United Statesamounts, by conservative estimate, to at least$11.4 billion a year (see Table 1-1 ) . Beyond cal-culation are the losses from businesses that mustclose and from jobs that are interrupted ordestroyed.

In an America that has only lately grown con-scious of its ecological responsibilities, there is aneed also to develop an awareness of fire’s roleas one of the greatest wasters of our naturalresources.

Appallingly, the richest and most technologi-cally advanced nation in the world leads all themajor industrial ized countries in per capitadeaths and property loss from fire. While differingreporting procedures make international compari-sons unreliable, the fact that the United States re-ports a deaths-per-million-population rate nearlytwice that of second-ranking Canada (57.1 versus29.7) leaves little doubt that this nation leads theother industrialized nations in fire deaths per

AMERICA BURNING 1

capita. Similarly, in the category of economic lossper capita, the United States exceeds Canada byone-third.

Table 1-1. Estimated Annual U.S. Fire Costs

Property loss . . . . . . . $2,700,000,000F i re depa r tmen t ope ra t i ons . . . 2 , 500 ,000 ,000Burn injury treatment . . . . . 1,000,000,000Operating cost of insurance

industry . . . . . . . . 1 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0Productivity loss . . . . . . 3,300,000,000

Total . . . . . . . $11,400,000,000

Among those paying most heavily for this poorrecord are the Nation’s firefighters. Theirs is themost hazardous profession of all. Their death rateis 15 percent greater than the next most dangerousoccupations, mining and quarrying. In 1971, theinjury rate for firefighters was 39.6 per 100 men-far higher than that of any other profession. Thatsame year, 175 firefighters died in the line ofduty; an additional 89 died of heart attacks and26 are known to have died of lung disease con-tributed to by the routine smoke hazard of theiroccupation.

While many firefighters, particularly in smallerdepartments, do not have adequate opportunitiesfor training, the fact is that the best training avail-able does not obliterate the risks that firefightersmust take in the line of duty. Every fire is a gamblewith the unknown, a venture into a unique com-plex of combustible materials and fire dynamics.

Risk substitutes for certainty, intuition for firmknowledge. As the Committee on Fire Researchof the National Research Council pointed out in1959, “growth in our knowledge of how to copewith fire has not kept pace” with the growth of thefire problem. This basic force of nature has at-tracted little interest in the scientific community,and its elementary characteristics remain myster-ies. To cite an unanswered practical question,posed in the Committee’s 1969 report: “Whenshould the top of a building be opened by fire-fighters to minimize spread; when does openingit increase the spread ?” Every fire chief, of course,has to answer that question many times at manyfire scenes, based on his training and experience.But little fundamental research has been per-formed to make one chief’s answer better in-formed than another’s.

America’s poor fire record, and its failure tomarshal enough scientific and monetary resourcesto improve the record, concerns those who workin the field of fire protection. Firefighters, indi-vidually and through such organizations as theInternational Association of Fire Fighters and theInternational Association of Fire Chiefs, havebeen outspoken on the need to improve fire pro-tection. The insurance industry, fire equipmentmanufacturers, fire research scientists, code offi-cials, government administrators : Each of thesegroups has sought to improve the Nation’s per-formance in combating the fire problem. Forthree-quarters of a century, the National Fire Pro-tection Association, representing a variety of inter-ests, has compiled an excellent record in publiceducation and in the setting of standards forfire safety.

Causes of America’s Fire Problem

The efforts of individuals and organizations inthe, fire protection field have run against the twintides of ignorance and indifference-tides whichcontribute substantially to the extraordinary mag-nitude of the fire problem in the United States.

While genuine economic problems often standin the way of deeper investment in fire protection,lack of understanding of fire’s threat helps to ac-count for the low priority given fire protection.And while those who have survived a fire neverforget its destructive potential, for most Ameri-cans fire appears a remote danger that justifiesindifference.

But indifference exists where it is least excus-able. For example, there are those in the fireservices who are unaware of the technologicalstate-of-the-art in their field. There are fire de-partment administrators who pay lip service tofire prevention and then do little to promote it.The public shares their unconcern, for in the pub-lic’s image-an image which firefighters share-the fire department is a heroic-proportioned bat-talion of people rescuers and fire suppressers, not aprofessional corps of fire preventers.

Designers of buildings generally give minimalattention to fire safety in the buildings they de-sign. They are content, as are their clients, to meetthe minimal safety standards of the local buildingcode. Often both assume that the codes providecompletely adequate measures rather than mini-

2 THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

The death rate from fire among children under five is three times that of the rest of the population.

AMERICA BURNING 3

ma1 ones. In other instances, building owners andoccupants see fire as something which will neverhappen to them, as a risk they will tolerate be-cause fire prevention measures can be costly, oras a risk adequately balanced by the provisionsof a fire insurance policy. Product designers, too,give little thought to possible toxic or fire-aggra-vating effects should their products become in-volved in a fire.

The Federal Government also has been largelyindifferent to the fire problem. The Federal pro-grams that exist (some of which are excellent)touch only smal l por t ions of the to ta l f i reproblem.

Lastly, the American public is indifferent toand ignorant of the heavy toll of destructive fire.The problem has not reached the American con-sciousness with the same force as, for example, thefar less lethal problem of air pollution. In contrast,poliomyelitis, which in the peak year of 1952 killedabout a third as many people as died by fire inthat year, has been virtually eradicated becauseof the public attention it received. Moved by thesight of crippled children, Americans dug intotheir pockets to support research and control pro-grams to attack the polio problem. Little concernhas come forth regarding the grave losses to theNation by fire.

Indifferent to fire as a national problem, Amer-icans are similarly careless about fire as a personalthreat. There is an old saying in the fire protectionfield, to the effect that fires have three causes:men, women, and children. It takes the careless orunwise action of a human being, in most cases, tobegin a destructive fire. In their home environ-ments, Americans live their daily lives amidflammable materials close to potential sources ofignition, Though Americans are aroused to issuesof safety in consumer products, fire safety is notone of their prime concerns. Few private homeshave fire extinguishers, much less fire detectionsystems. Too few multiple-family dwellings andinstitutions have automatic equipment for ex-tinguishing fires. And often when fire strikes,ignorance of what to do leads to panic behaviorand aggravation of the hazards, rather than tosuccessful escape.

Fire accidents due to carelessness occupy avast middle portion of the spectrum of man-caused fires. At one end of the spectrum are the

4 THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

fires that are caused by the relatively helpless inour society-the very young, the old, and the handicapped. At the other end of the spectrum’are the fires set deliberately.

The death rate from fire among children under5 and the elderly over 65 is three times that ofthe rest of the population. Though together theseyoung and old make up only 20 percent of theAmerican population, they account for 45 per-cent of the fire deaths.

In contrast to the fire accidents difficult to pre-vent are the fires set on purpose. In 1971, amongfires reported to the National Fire ProtectionAssociation, about 7 percent were classified as in-cendiary; an additional 17 percent were “of un-known origin.” Arsonists pick expensive targets :Among the 1971 fires in which losses exceeded$250,000,27 percent were classified as incendiary,another 47 percent as of unknown origin. In manylarge cities, fire chiefs believe that almost half ofall fires in their experience have been deliberatelyset.

Fire has always held an attraction for de-mented thrillseekers. That fire is a way of attack-ing authority is indicated by the fact that in 197126 percent of the large-loss school fires and44 percent of the large-loss church fires wereincendiary.

First cousin to the maliciously set fire is thefalse alarm. In large cities, it is not uncommon forfalse alarms to constitute 20 to 30 percent of allcalls for service (excluding ambulance requests),In Boston false alarms in 1972 occurred on theaverage of one every 45 minutes.

Not all deliberately set fires stem from maliceor thrillseeking; an increasing number are set forprofit. A number of building owners have beensetting their properties afire to reap insurance ben-efits and tax write-offs in excess of market value,delinquent taxes, or demolition costs. In thetroubled city of Newark, N.J., where the numberof vacated buildings increased by 300 percentbetween 1965 and 1971, the number of fires inthese structures increased by over 500 percent.There is evidence that the Fair Access to InsuranceRequirements (FAIR) plan, designed to provideinsurance on properties not qualified under nor-mal company standards, is being used by someowners of deteriorating buildings to burn forprofit.

Social Changes Affecting the Fire Problem

That there is not an all-out war against arson andfalse alarm again reflects national indifference to-ward destructive fire. Partly because of this na-tional indifference, and partly because rapidchanges in American society have created otherproblems, our approaches to ‘the fire problem arenot adequate to meet the needs of today. Theysuffer what anthropologists call “cultural lag”;our methods of handling the fire problem are at-tuned to the America of yesteryear-not to con-temporary needs, much less to future needs. Theyhave changed slowly, while America has beenchanging rapidly.

It doer; not follow that the increasing lag hasled to increasingly inadequate fire protection. For,as the National Fire Protection Association hasdocumented, our Nation’s dollar losses from fire(adjusted for inflation) have not worsened mate-rially over the years. The percentage of nationalwealth destroyed by fire has actually been decreas-ing by a very small extent. What follows is that,if the Nation’s fire record is to improve signifi-cantly, our methods of protection against fire lossesmust respond, more effectively than they havethus far, to important changes that have beentaking place in America.

One such trend is the increasing urbanizationof the United States. Half a century ago, abouthalf our population lived in urban areas. Today,about three out of four Americans do. While dis-tances from firehouse to fire site are generallyshorter in urban areas than in rural areas, cloggedcity streets often add costly minutes to responsetime when a fire breaks out. Intensive use of landin urban areas means bigger buildings, whichcreate complex problems of fire safety. More peo-ple are concentrated and exposed to the threat offire or its toxic smoke. High-rise buildings, thoughhallmarks of urban progress, are special night-mares to firefighters. Upper floors are hard toreach, and it is difficult to vent heat and smoke inmodern air-conditioned buildings.

Urbanization has created social problems-themigration of the poor into cities, the expansion ofghettos, the rising expectations of minorities whichare being met only laggardly---that have affectedthe magnitude of fire losses. The most rundownneighborhoods, where dilapidated buildings aretinder boxes, are where the poor are forced to live.

The crowded apartment houses and tenementbuildings often reflect total indifference to firesafety, because landlords see no benefit in decent,long-term upkeep of their properties. Tenantsmust often warm their rooms with dangerous port-able or make-shift heaters because central heatingis inoperable or nonexistent, Discontent in theghettos can breed problems for fire departments:in the form of riots, set fires, false alarms, andharassment of firefighters.

The movement of America’s minorities for rec-ognition of their rights has forced upon us therealization that fire departments are, in general,manned disproportionately by white Americans.Racial minorities are under-represented in the firedepartments in nearly every community in whichthey live.

Another social change pertinent to the Nation’sfire protection is the increased militancy of munic-ipal employees. Firefighters have seen what union-ization has done for the salaries and benefits ofother city employees. They have seen conditionsimprove for other municipal departments whilethey have been bypassed. Quite understandablythey have petitioned for higher wages and betterworking conditions. In the past half-dozen years,in some of the larger cities, they have also under-taken job actions-slowdowns, massive sick leaves,and even a few strikes-which jeopardized fireprotection for the community.

The increasing militancy of firefighters meets,head on, another important change: the increas-ing financial plight of local governments. Especi-ally in the large cities, but not exclusively there,governments are facing static or declining taxrevenues, increasing costs, and hence the need toquestion all city expenditures and to place greateremphasis on the efficient operation of municipalservices. Local governments are demanding betterlong-range planning and better utilization of man-power and equipment. They are pressing fire. de-partments to produce sophisticated cost-benefitjustifications for their expenditures. They aredemanding that fire departments operate moreefficiently without jeopardizing the public’s safetyfrom fire.

This makes pertinent a further trend in oursociety: the increasing application of manage-ment science to solve these local problems. Localgovernments are calling in research experts to re-

AMERICA BURNING 5

Working amid flame, smoke, and collapsing buildings, firefighters pursue the most hazardous profession of all.

6 THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

view municipal services with the same systemsapproaches that have worked so well in industry.

Still another important change bearing on theNation’s fire protection is the so-called technologi-cal revolution. Our man-made environment is be-ing filled with new materials and new productsabout which little is known concerning their haz-ard potential when they burn. New chemicalsand other hazardous materials are being pro-duced, shipped, and used around the country.Often fire departments are unaware of these dan-gers in their midst, nor have they experience indealing with them. Some of these new productsproduce toxic gases while burning that are farmore deadly than the kinds of smoke firefightersare accustomed to.

About the technological revolution it can alsobe said that it has hardly touched the fire services.In comparison with such fields as aviation, large-scale construction, and electronics, the technologyof firefighting has been relatively stagnant. Ironi-cally, while flammability standards have been im-posed on children’s sleepwear, no such standardsexist for firefighters’ “turnout” coats.

Prevention Needs Priority

Response to important social changes is a key toimproving the Nation’s record in fire protection.A consideration of equal importance is the needto change priorities in the field of fire protection.Currently, about 95 cents of every dollar spent onthe fire services is used to extinguish fires; onlyabout 5 cents is spent on efforts-mostly fire pre-vention inspections and public education pro-grams-to prevent fires from starting. Much moreenergy and funds need to be devoted to fire pre-vention, which could yield huge payoffs in livesand property saved. (While fire prevention effortswould lower the incidence of fire and, hence,might lower the costs of fire suppression, it wouldbe essential to support fire suppression services atcurrent levels until a marked reduction in fires hadbeen documented.)

The Role of This Commission

The National Commission on Fire Preventionand Control was funded by Congress in 1971 tostudy the fire problem and make recommenda-tions “whereby the Nation can reduce the de-struction of life and property caused by fire in

cities, suburbs, communities, and elsewhere.”The enabling legislation (see Appendix I),

without limiting the Commission’s scope, defineda number of areas for our study. We rephrasethem here as questions: What technological ad-vances, construction techniques, and improvedinspection procedures would prevent fires mosteffectively? Is the Federal Government doing allit should to lessen the danger of destructive firesin federally assisted housing and in the redevelop-ment of the Nation’s cities and communities? Areexisting methods for suppressing fires adequate?Are the procedures for recruiting personnel ad-equate? Are firefighters receiving sufficient train-ing? Are current fire communication techniquesadequate? Does firefighting equipment needimprovement? Standardization? Are there ad-ministrative problems affecting the efficiency orcapabilities of fire departments? Finally, howshould responsibilities for reducing fire losses bedistributed among Federal , State, and localgovernments?

In pursuit of answers, the Commission has heldhearings in five widely scattered cities, heard thetestimony of more than 100 witnesses fillingthousands of pages of transcript, and spent count-less hours learning and deliberating in both for-mal and informal sessions. In addition, specialstudies have been prepared by Commission staffand by a dozen experts from government andprivate groups exploring particular problems andtheir alternative solutions. Over 130 positionpapers were filed with the Commission advocat-ing different approaches to the fire problem.

How Fire Safe Could We Be?

Congress established this Commission out of aconviction that- present rates of losses in life andproperty by fire in the United States need to bereduced. The question naturally arises: Whatlevel of losses is acceptable? For us to set as agoal a total end of destruction of life and propertyby fire would be unrealistic.

An acceptable goal, however, can be based onthe allocation of an appropriate part of our na-tional resources. The goal of saving lives, ofcourse, is inherently worthy of pursuit. But oneway of defining a minimal appropriate level ofGovernment investment is to find that level whichwill maximize the payoff, in tax revenues, from

AMERICA BURNING 7

In some large cities, nearly a third of the engine responses are to false alarms-not always set by children

both lives and property saved. Another is to com-pare the severity of the fire problem relative toother important problems competing for re-sources, such as crime and death on the highway.

This Commission believes that a reduction of50 percent in deaths, injuries, and property lossesis quite possible within the next generation. Thiscan be attained by a declining balance reductionof 5 percent per year. To that end, we haverecommended a number of actions that can betaken by government and industry at little or nocost. But we also see the necessity, if that goalis to be achieved, of Federal assistance averaging$150 million annually over the next 5 years.

This 5 percent drop per year in fire losses overthe next 5 years could accomplish :

8 THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

l A total saving of 8,000 lives;l A total reduction of injuries by 210,000;l Property losses saved totaling $1.9 billion;l Hospital and medical costs lowered by $85

million. (Under the present system of sub-sidized medical care, this might save the Fed-eral Government $30 million.)

Federal Action is Needed

While the Commission’s stated goals for fire re-duction might be argued, it is indisputable thatthe Federal Government must at some cost helpthe Nation attack the fire problem if any signifi-cant reduction in fire losses is to be achieved. Itmust help devise educational programs so thatAmericans can prevent fires and cope with them

when they occur. It must help provide bettertraining and equipment for firefighters. It mustassist an accelerated and coordinated effort inresearch on the fire problem.

Accordingly, the Commission recommendsthat Congress establish a United States Fire Ad-ministration to provide a national focus for theNation’s fire problem and to promote a compre-hensive program with adequate funding to re-duce life and property loss from fire.

Details of the responsibilities we envision forthe U.S. Fire Administration, and of its relationsto existing Federal agencies, will emerge in sub-sequent recommendations. It is sufficient to sayhere that we would not want the proposed U.S.Fire Administration to swallow or supplant on-going programs of research and action. The func-tion of the Administration would be to help guideefforts, by keeping local, State, and Federalagencies informed of related efforts in both theprivate and public sector, encouraging coopera-tion, and promoting interest in areas of researchor action that have been neglected.

Many of our recommendations call for aug-mented programs and new efforts by State andlocal governments. We recognize that many ofthese governments are unable to undertake newexpenditures in fire protection without Federalhelp. Thus we envision the new Fire Administra-tion as also being a grant-making agency in thefield of fire protection, similar in concept to theLaw Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The Need for Fire Data

One other function of the proposed U.S. FireAdministration deserves special emphasis : tohelp place solutions to the fire problem on afirmer foundation of scientific data.

Time and again-in listening to testimony, in

studying the fire problem, in searching for solu-tions-this Commission found an appalling gapin data and information that effectively separatedus from sure knowledge of various aspects of thefire problem. The lack was not total; the Na-tional Fire Protection Association, for example,collects valuable data on a voluntary basis fromthe fire services. Other valuable studies have beenconducted by the National Bureau of Standards,the Committee on Fire Research of the NationalResearch Council, and a number of insurancecompanies. But in many areas of the fire prob-lem, proposed solutions rest on limited experi-ence, shaky assumptions, and guesswork,

Cost-effective solutions to the fire problem willrequire a lot more data-broader in scope anddeeper in detail than now exist. This is not a one-time need. Continuing data collection will beneeded to measure the effectiveness and impactof new programs in fire protection and to identifyemerging problems in the field.

Accordingly, the Commission recommendsthat a national fire data system be established toprovide a continuing review and analysis of theentire fire problem. In addition to filling in cur-rent gaps in understanding of the fire problem,the system could ensure against duplication ofeffort by data-gatherers in both the public andprivate sectors. (In this connection we note thatthe National Fire Protection Association has de-veloped the most broad-based and thorough datasystem; it would be appropriate for the Govern-ment to utilize the NFPA surveys as part of itslarger effort in data-gathering.) Since the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration could not per-form its functions effectively without adequatedata, it is altogether logical to house responsibilityfor administering a national fire data systemwithin that Administration.

AMERICA BURNING 9

2LIVING VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY

Fire kills. But fire has its living victims too: thosewho grieve the loss of loved ones killed by fire,those who manage to get out alive (while othersclose to them may not have), those who are lefthomeless or jobless or impoverished because offire. The victims most poignant to consider arethose maimed and disfigured by burn injuries.About half of these victims are children. Theirscars, psychological as well as physical, often lasta lifetime.

Among the illnesses and injuries that requirelong hospitalization, few are as traumatic as severeburns. The frightening circumstances of the in-jury, the long isolation from family, the feelingof helplessness, the continuous pain during recov-ery, the cosmetic operations that fall far short ofexpectations, the stigma of disfigurement--allcontribute to a deep despondency that impairsrecovery.

Often the patient is not the only one to endurepsychological wounds. If the victim is a child, par-ents are likely to feel guilty for what has hap-pened. Some parents find it impossible to acceptand love a disfigured child. Nurses, who must in-

flict considerable pain on the patient over longperiods of treatment, are subject to stress. In manyburn care facilities there is a 100 percent turnoverin nursing staff every 6 months.

The Long Road to Rehabilitation

The average hospital stay for a burn victim is overthree times that of medical and surgical patients.An individual’s hospital stay and later treatmentcan add up to $60,000 or more. (Reducing fireaccidents, therefore, should be among the top pri-orities in the national effort to control health carecosts. )

If the severely burned patient is fortunate, heor she will be treated in one of a dozen “burncenters” in the United States. In these specialfacilities, patients receive expert medical and sur-gical care from the outset, and physical and emo-tional rehabilitation through the long weeks ofrecovery. The process can be described throughan actual case history:

It is the fall of 1970. Eight-year-old Susan andher older brother are playing in their garage. Anunsealed can of gasoline tips over and, an instant

AMERICA BURNING 11

later, the pilot light of the nearby water heaterignites the vapor. In the flash fire and explosion,Susan’s face and arms are badly burned, her dressset afire. She is rushed to a local emergency room,where she is treated for shock. Because the burnsare extensive and predominantly third degree (themost severe kind), the doctors arrange for heradmission to a burn center, 100 miles away.

There, intensive care begins. The wounds arecleaned and treated with antibacterial agents; in-travenous lines are inserted; and a catheter isplaced into the bladder to collect urine, whichserves as a guide to the fluid needs of the body.Nurses in the intensive care unit keep a close

ONE CHILD’S ORDEAL

“Todd was burned on both sides. He kept re-jecting grafts for 5 weeks. They would leavehim in one position as long as the graft seemedto take, then they would turn him over and trygrafting another area.”

He would stay in that position?’“Yes, for 2 or 3 weeks.“During the time that he was in the unit,

he exhibited the typical signs of withdrawal. Hewouldn’t speak to us. He would turn his face tothe wail. . . .

“We were able to touch him through plasticgloves only. We were not able to touch him atall until 10 weeks, until he was out on the floor,and even then we had to wear a mask. . . .

“After he was out he had to learn how towalk all over again. Being bedridden for thatamount of time, he was extremely weak. Hewas very bent over at this particular time be-cause the folds were burned right around hiships and in the groin area, As time went on thescar tissue was contracting, pulling down. . . .

“This [indicating brace] Todd wears for hisnap and also at nighttime. When he first camehome, we tried everything to keep this on hislegs. We had restraints made ourselves. Wewould spend an average of an hour a nightgetting him into this splint, because it was veryimportant that his knees remain straight so thathis hip would be flat. . . .

“[Before applying ointment] you have to takethe scab off that forms, so that the wound willnot heal on the outside and stay open under-neath. So you have to pick this off your child’sskin while he screams and cries, ‘Please,Mommy, don’t hurt me.”

From testimony to the Commission(February 15,1972) of parents of

a 3-year-old bum victim.

watch, lest she go into shock or turn blue fromsmoke inhalation injury. Later she is anesthetizedand wheeled into surgery, where a doctor beginsdebridement, the cutting away of burned tissue.The wounds are covered with antibiotic dress-ing, and Susan is given penicillin to ward offinfection.

More debridement operations follow. Doctorsand nurses continue to monitor closely Susan’sfluid management and the functioning of her vitalorgans. On the third day, having survived theacute phase in which fluid imbalances can befatal, Susan is taking food by mouth, and theintravenous lines are removed. For the first time,she complains of pain from her wounds.

On the seventh day there is a marked changein Susan. She refuses food, she is unruly. But thestaff members have seen this kind of behavioroften, for it signals the onset of guilt or fear ofparental reaction about the accident. After con-ferring with staff, Susan’s parents discuss the ac-cident, assuring her they were concerned but notangry. Her mood soon brightens. But there willbe other periods of irritability. Having less thanthe normal amount of skin is a depressing con-dition, and it is common for patients to be difficult,irascible, or complaining until the wounds healor are successfully skin-grafted.

During the second and third weeks, operationsare performed to remove further dead skin. AS SO

often happens, the wounds become infected andfor a time her life is in jeopardy. In the fourthweek grafting operations begin-four in all, stagedat 1O-day intervals. Between operations, Susan un-dergoes intensive physical therapy, since graftedskin tends to contract and hamper the body’smovements. Despite all precautions, contracturesof her neck, right wrist, and right hand begin todevelop, drawing her chin toward her chest, herwrist backward, and her fingers out of joint.Though Susan is discharged after 80 hospital days,the deformities already developing grow worse,despite frequent physical therapy and splinting.She is readmitted twice during the ensuing 4months for reconstructive surgery.

More plastic surgery awaits her. It will nevertotally erase the scars. And despite the efforts ofthe psychiatrist on the burn center staff, Susan stillcarries psychological scars. She is introspective,self-conscious, and overly dependent on her father.

12 LIVING VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY

Most Treatment is Inadequate

At present, fewer than 100 of the 6,000 generalhospitals in the United States provide specializedburn care. Together these few hospitals treat only8 percent of the Nation’s patients with seriousburn injuries.

Of the burn centers like the one that treatedSusan, there are only 12 in the United States.These are separate hospital facilities with researchand teaching programs as well as patient care.Typically, a burn center employs a large staff ofgeneral, orthopedic, and plastic surgeons, speciallytrained nurses and physical therapists, psycholo-gists, psychiatrists, social workers, and others who

mount a coordinated effort to treat all aspects ofthe patient’s problem.

The difference between the treatment in burncenters and the treatment in most hospitals can bea matter of life or death. For example, of all the2-year-olds treated in hospitals for second- andthird-degree burns over 45 percent of the body,only one in ten survives. Of the small proportionof these children who are lucky enough to betreated in burn centers, more than six out of tensurvive. Among 8-year-olds suffering second- andthird-degree burns over 60 percent of the body,the national survival rate is only two out of ten.Among patients in this category treated in burncenters, half survive.

Only 8 percent of the Nation’s seriously burned patients receive treatment in specialized hospital facilities.

AMERICA BURNING 13

Not only do burn centers save more lives thanmost hospitals, they also expend more effort onrehabilitation-psychological and vocational aswell as physical.

There is obviously a great need for additionalburn centers in the United States. There is alsoa need for less elaborate facilities to handle lessserious cases. Presently there are 20 hospitals inthe Nation with “burn units”--that is, specializedfacilities of at least four beds used only for burnvictims. An additional 46 hospitals are known tohave “burn programs”-a staff of burn injuryspecialists but not separate facilities.¹

The Commission recommends that Congressenact legislation to make possible the attain-ment of 25 burn units and centers and 90 burnprograms within the next 10 years. These burntreatment facilities should be located where theyare most needed-that is, close to populationswith high incidence of burn injuries. The numberof facilities we have recommended is far fewerthan the number some experts say are needed, butwe believe that other measures we recommend inthis report could significantly reduce the numberof burn injuries and, hence, the need for costlytreatment.

The Need for Specialists and Research

If these added facilities were available tomorrow,they would be of little value without dedicatedphysicians, nurses, and other professionals to staffthem. Considering physicians alone, the hard re-ality is that there is little incentive to specialize inburn treatment. A disproportionate number ofburn patients come from lower income familieswho cannot afford to pay the bills for treatment.And that treatment is expensive. Clearly, theneeds of burn patients will never be adequatelymet unless the treatment is heavily subsidized.The Commission recommends that Congress, inproviding for new burn treatment facilities, makeadequate provision for the training and contin-uing support of the specialists to staff thesefacilities. Provision should also be made for spe-cial training of those who provide emergencycare for burn victims in general hospitals.

‘I. Feller, and K. H. Crane, “Classification of BurnCare Facilities in the United States,” Journal of the Ameri-can Medical Association, Jan. 18, 1971.

14 LIVING VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY

The most experienced specialists in burn treat-ment are quick to admit that the state-of-the-artis limited by lack of knowledge. For example, un-derstanding of the fluid shifts and transfusion re-quirements in burn patients is limited. There isuncertainty among medical scientists about thebest techniques for warding off infection, a majorkiller of burn patients. How burn injuries affecta patient’s immunity is another matter l i t t leunderstood.

In fiscal year 1972, the National Institutes ofHealth spent about $1.25 million on research con-nected with burns and their treatment. The SocialRehabili tation Service of the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare spent an addi-tional $380,000 on special studies having to dowith the rehabilitation of burn patients.

In contrast, NIH spent $34 million on renal dis-ease research, $16 million on studies of hyper-tension, and $5.5 million on hepatitis research.(Renal diseases claim about 9,000 lives everyyear; hypertensive heart disease about 16,000;there are about 54,000 cases of hepatitis everyyear, few of them fatal.)

The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Institutes of Health greatly augment theirsponsorship of research on burns and burntreatment. A minimal and very realistic goalwould be $3 million, which would correspondwith an investment of $10 per year for each ofthe 300,000 Americans who are injured by fireeach year.

Another aspect of the fire injury problem,largely overlooked for many years, urgently needsresearch investigation : smoke inhalation injury.More than half--53 percent-of victims suc-cumbing at the scene of a fire die a a result ofinhaling the products of combustion. Of thosewho live long enough to reach the hospital, 42percent succumb from inhalation injury.’

Surprisingly, even some of the simplest ques-tions remain to be answered. Which are the bestsimple methods for a person in a fire to protecthimself from smoke inhalation? What really doesthe damage to the lungs? How does smoke in-halation affect the ability of the lungs to resist

² Anne W. Phillips and Oliver Cope, “Burn Therapy II,The Revelation of Respiratory Tract Damage as a Prin-cipal Killer of the Burn Patient,” Annuls of Surgery, Jan-uary 1962 (pp. 1-19).

Many of fire’s victims never awaken. Smoke, toxic gases, or lack of oxygen kills them while they sleep.

infection? What emergency measures at the sceneof the fire could counteract the effects of irritants?

These and other questions deserve more atten-tion than they have received. The Commissionrecommends that the National Institutes ofHealth administer and support a systematic pro-gram of research concerning smoke inhalationinjuries. At a minimum, NIH should receive anadditional $250,000 in the coming fiscal year forthis purpose.

A Final Word

Accidents happen-but not randomly. There isincreasing evidence from research that deep emo-

tional disturbances lead to accident-proneness. Inone study of children with burn injuries, person-ality disorders (such as delinquency) and familydisorders (such as alcoholism and strained mar-riages) were found to be commonplace condi-tions prior to the accidents.”

Strengthening of affection in American fami-lies, it can be inferred, would do much to counter-act the problem of fire injuries. That imperativelies beyond our powers to recommend, but notbeyond our fervent hopes.

3 Robert T. Long and Oliver Cope, “Emotional Problemsof Burned Children,” New England Journal of Medicine,264: 1121-1127, 1961.

AMERICA BURNING 15

THE FIRE SERVICES

3ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

Smoke is pouring from the windows of a vacantapartment on the third floor of a tenement. Apasserby runs to the nearest fire alarm box andpulls the lever. Instantly a gong sounds in thefire station eight blocks away, the pattern of itsringing indicating the location of the alarm box.Firefighters jump into their heavy boots, don theirhelmets and canvas coats, and sprint aboard apumper. Other men board the ladder truck sittingnext to the pumper. In less than a minute afterthe sounding of the gong, the pumper and thetruck are racing down the street toward the fire,their sirens wailing. Simultaneously, engines fromother fire stations head toward the fire.

This is a scene that is repeated hundreds oftimes a year in every city. Except that internalcombustion engines have replaced horses, this isthe way fire departments have responded to firesfor as long as anyone can remember. Seldom doesthe question arise : Is this the best way to respond?

It is the duty of every fire department to savelives and reduce injuries and property losses whenfires occur. Our Nation’s record in each of theseareas needs vast improvement. Because humancarelessness accounts for most fires, it is the public,not the fire departments, that must shoulder the

major burden of improving the Nation’s fire rec-ord. Moreover, the vast majority of firefightersare volunteers who take grave risks without com-pensation, and they are giving all the time to theirfire companies that their busy lives permit. Manyfire departments, both paid and volunteer, areperforming as well as their resources allow. Yetthe Nation’s fire record gives them no ground forcomplacency.

How can fire protection be improved? The easyanswer is to augment the budgets of fire depart-ments by 20, 30, or 40 percent so that more equip-ment can be bought and more firefighters hired.But it does not follow that increases of 20, 30, or40 percent will be matched by like reductions inlosses of life and property. Nor is it realistic, at atime when most local governments are financiallysqueezed, to speak in such terms.

The more realistic solution, for most commu-nities, lies in careful assessment of what future in-vestments (whether in men, equipment, or newprograms) will maximize effectiveness, then agradual shift of priorities toward the most cost-effective measures.

In such an assessment, basic questions need tobe asked. Communities for which the scenario at

AMERICA BURNING 17

the beginning of this chapter is typical might ask :How many firefighters should respond to everysingle-alarm fire? How many pieces of equipment?(One study shows that less than 1 percent of allcalls for service require greater effort than can behandled by two or three men and one fire engine.)On the other hand, does sophisticated and expen-sive equipment make a critical difference in thetime it takes to suppress a fire? Does it save morelives and reduce property losses?

Paid fire departments typically spend most oftheir money and efforts on fire suppression;usually less than 5 percent of the budget is devotedto fire prevention. If part of the money spent onresponding to the tenement fire had been spentinstead on enforcing a tough fire prevention code,would the fire have occurred at all?

Other questions for communities to ask: Howshould firefighters be scheduled and deployed toensure effectiveness and efficiency in fire depart-ment operations? When a volunteer or paid de-partment has recruited all the members it can(or can afford), might help be found elsewhere?Should a town or small city have its own fire de-partment? Or should it consolidate fire serviceswith neighboring communities to avoid dupli-cating costs?

As communities undertake a basic reassessmentof their fire services, they will have to find solu-tions best suited to their conditions. Some com-munities are at an early stage of growth wherethey can consider a number of alternatives to theirpresent system of fire protection. Others have aheavy investment in their present system and canconsider only a gradual shift of priorities. Solu-tions appropriate to large cities are not likely towork for small towns and bedroom communities.

For years fire chiefs and local governments havebeen listening to one outside voice telling themhow to improve their fire services. That outsidevoice has been the score their community re-ceives on the Grading Schedule of the InsuranceService Office (formerly of the American Insur-ance Association). The Grading Schedule was de-vised as a tool to assist in setting fire insurancerates for each community. It was not intended asa guide to fire department decisions, though cir-cumstances have invited that kind of use. When acommunity’s score has indicated that two or morefire engines would earn it a lower insurance rate,

18 ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

local governments have felt pressed to buy them.Now local administrators are beginning to rec-

ognize that their community’s interests and thoseof the Grading Schedule do not necessarily coin-cide. The Grading Schedule, for example, is di-rected primarily toward preventing propertylosses. Deaths and injuries are also prevented asa result of this concern, but they are not the fore-most consideration.

The Grading Schedule attaches only small im-portance to fire prevention. Ironically, few localgovernments expend as much on fire preventionas the Grading Schedule recommends. As we dis-cuss in Chapters 11 and 16, more attention by firedepartments to fire prevention--through firesafety education, building inspection, and ap-proval of the fire protection features of buildingplans-would significantly reduce life and prop-erty losses and injuries from fires.

Fire departments can’t be blamed for the ignor-ance and indifference that cause unsafe buildingsto be built, that account for shoddy wiring andhazardous storage, that contribute to people’scarelessness with matches and cigarettes, that ex-plain the counterproductive behavior of peoplewhen a fire breaks out. But if the tides of ignoranceand indifference are to be turned back, as surelythey must, then fire departments are the naturalplace for the effort. As educators and enforcers,fire departments can do much to lessen the inci-dence and destructiveness of fire. The importanceof the prevention role is underscored by the factthat fire departments can do so little when fireshave gotten out of hand before they were notified.The Commission recommends that local govern-ments make fire prevention at least equal tosuppression in the planning of fire departmentpriorities.

The Present System

One reason large cities and smaller communitiesare likely to arrive at very different solutions toenhancing fire protection is that they tend to havedistinctly different fire departments. Most largecities have paid fire departments; many smallercommunities are protected by volunteer depart-ments.

About 1 million Americans serve as volunteerfirefighters-five times the number of paid fire-fighters in the Nation. By one estimate, based on

The Nation’s fire departments range from large metropolitan ones to small volunteer companies serving rural areas.

what it would cost to replace volunteers with paidfirefighters, the Nation’s volunteers are render-ing a public service worth at least $4.5 billionannually.

The huge diversity among volunteer fire de-partments makes generalization about them diffi-cult. While some are strapped for manpower,others are endowed generously enough to send allof their active members to State firefighter schooleach year. Some serve isolated rural towns onbudgets as low as $3,500 a year. Others are calledupon to serve a densely populated area of 50square miles with substantial budgets and man-power. The hazards they protect against rangefrom widely scattered houses and barns to heavilypopulated urban areas.

The striking aspect of volunteer departments,of course, is that they cost far less than paid de-partments. Then, too, volunteers are often peopleof standing in the community, are dependent onother citizens for contributions to the department,so that a broad segment of the community is sup-

portive of the department and conscious of the fireproblem. On the other hand, volunteer depart-ments often can afford only a low level of trainingand an inadequate dispatching and communica-tions system. When a fire occurs, turnout can beuncertain. Their part-time members usually lackthe experience of full-time firefighters. They also,in many cases, lack the manpower to do buildinginspection and other fire prevention work.

Since paid departments are generally larger,and have more men on duty more of the timethan volunteer departments, they tend to be morecomplex oragnizations. In addition to having spe-cialized companies, e.g., engine, ladder, snorkel,rescue-of from two to seven firemen, paid de-partments often have special staffs for training,fire prevention, communications, purchasing,community relations, and other purposes.

With such complexity, typical problems of bu-reaucracies emerge : lack of coordination amongseparate units, the subordination of central pur-pose---public service-to petty rules and red tape,

AMERICA BURNING 19

the stifling of innovation. Presiding over thistenuous alliance is the fire chief, who wears twohats-one, the administrative hat required to runthe organization; the other, the helmet he donswhen the alarm is sounded to lead his firefightersin the suppression of a fire. Since the fire chiefusually has come up through the ranks, the secondhat probably fits comfortably. It is the adminis-trative duties of today’s complex municipal de-partment for which the chief is less likely to beadequately prepared.

Alternatives for the Future

Whether the fire department is volunteer or paid,fire prevention and protection can be improved inevery community in the Nation. Few, if any,communities can say they have reduced life andproperty losses from fire to the extent humanlypossible.

For most communities, improving the effective-ness of the fire service calls for gradual changeswithin the present structure: a shift of prioritiestoward fire prevention, better deployment sys-tems, improved management practices. Othercommunities will want to consider a major shiftfrom their present system. In the next few pageswe explore some of the alternatives open to them.

Part volunteer, part paid. Communities thathave grown in size or complexity beyond the capa-bilities of their volunteer fire departments need toconsider a shift toward paid departments. Amongthe advantages of a paid department is the factthat, if it replaces several volunteer companies,it can ensure that fire protection resources arespread equitably in the community. One source ofcriticism, of course, is the increased cost of paidmanpower. But the shift need only be partial. Forexample, many volunteer departments can sum-mon adequate manpower during evening andnighttime hours but are hard pressed for man-power during daylight hours when volunteers areat their jobs. In such instances, it would makesense to have paid firefighters on duty during thedaytime.

Auxiliary firefighters. An alternative source ofsupplemental manpower sometimes used is mu-nicipal employees who can be called away fromtheir main jobs without serious detriment to thechief function they perform. Reliance on such per-sonnel for first-alarm capability would certainly

20 ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

be ill-advised. However, if adequately trained asfirefighters, they can be a source of secondarymanpower.

Womanpower. When a small Florida com-munity organized a volunteer fire department sev-eral years ago, it faced the classic problem: The15 male members were not available during thedaytime. The solution : Nine wives took over thedaytime obligations. They have responded to asmany as six brush fires in a single day, and the firechief describes the system as working “beauti-fully.” In a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, wives aresimilarly organized as a daytime rescue squad.

Fire departments that face physically strenuoustasks day in and day out will understandably bereluctant to hire women as firefighters. But reluc-tance to hire women for less taxing duties, such asdispatching, ambulance-driving, and inspectingbuildings, is harder to defend and, indeed, islikely to be challenged legally with increasing fre-quency in coming years. The Commission recom-mends that communities train and utilize womenfor fire service duties.

Police-fire consolidation. A small number ofcommunities have consolidated, partially or fully,their police and fire departments. One recentsource 1 lists 23 cities and towns with fully con-solidated departments (usually called publicsafety departments), 10 with partial consolida-tion, and two with “selected area” consolidation-that is, confined to certain neighborhoods.

Of the cities with fully consolidated depart-ments, 17 of the 23 are in communities with fewerthan 10,000 residents. Generally they are affluentresidential communities, lacking the hazards asso-ciated with aging urban centers or large industrialdistricts. They do not have the crime problems ofurban areas; hence, the absence of patrolmen dur-ing a fire is less risky than it would be in largercities.

The 23 communities all have some form of CO-operative patrolmen or public safety officers--thatis, men with some firefighting training who areprimarily police officers, but who respond to firealarms and provide various forms of assistance.In one city, for example, neighborhood patrolscarry resuscitators and large fire extinguishers intheir vehicles. Patrolmen are not called away from

‘Harry W. More, Jr., The New Era of Public Safety,Springfield, 111. : Charles C Thomas, 1970.

crime control if a fire occurs. In another, public neither the crime problem nor the fire problem is

safety units staffed by two firefighters, cross- serious. As either problem rises in seriousness, so

trained as police officers, patrol an assigned area does the potential for conflict of purposes, with

in station wagons equipped with firefighting the result that attention to one problem will beequipment, first aid equipment, and protective sacrificed to attention paid to the other. Indeed,clothing. Two additional firemen are assigned to the more serious is either problem the more im-

each piece of equipment at the fire station; hence, portant it is to have personnel specially suited for

total manning is four men per company. Ninety attacking the problem. Fighting fires and fightingpercent of the time the station wagon arrives first criminals call for very different skills; they also

at fires in its district, and one-third of the time its call for men with very different motivations andpatrolmen are able to handle the fire unassisted. very different assessments of the kinds of risks they

Consolidation appears to work in areas where are willing to take. That firemen and policemen

PROMETHEUS SCORNED

From colonial times down to the twentieth cen-tury, fire was a dreaded threat to the advancingAmerican civilization. Fire wiped out farms;time and again, conflagrations leveled wholesections of towns and cities.

But citizens organized fire companies, andthey fought back. Proud of their roles and therisks they took, volunteer companies becametrue fraternities of men. Often a communitywas served by several different companies, eachtrying to be the best in town-the strongest,fastest, shiniest. Rivalry sometimes led to brawlsand even sabotage.

The shift to paid departments in the largercities came only gradually. Boston establishedthe first, after a great conflagration in 1679, butfor the next 200 years separate volunteer com-panies survived in most cities.

With their strong fraternal traditions, thevolunteer companies resisted change, Theyfought against relinquishing their place at thetow line in front of the hand pumper to a horse;they fought against efforts to reorganize thecompanies into a municipal organization,

But inevitably, change came to the fire serv-ices. Hand-drawn pumpers gave way to horse-drawn steamers, which gave way to gasolineengine pumpers. Coordinated municipal fireservices were established. Fire laws were enactedto give some responsibility for fire control to thecitizenry. Technology reduced the risk of majorfires.

But the risks to firemen themselves have notdiminished. They still push themselves to theouter edge of endurance-and sometimesbeyond. Even with advances in technology,there still comes a moment when the firemanmust turn away from the lashing tongues of fire.The struggle is still there, and it is still a heroicstruggle.

AMERICA BURNING 21

One result of regional cooperation can be an improved dispatching system to reduce response time significantly.

22 ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

are different kinds of people is attested to by stud-ies which find that firemen make much betterparamedics.

Several other cautions are in order. While con-solidation plans make valuable use of firefighters’non-emergency time, there are functions related tofire protection that deserve higher priority: fireprevention inspections, fire safety education, res-cue and paramedic services among them. More-over, no community can say with full assurancethat its fire problem is small.2

An additional consideration : If firefighters alsohave law enforcement duties, they will be badchoices for conducting residential fire safety in-spections. Suspicions about their true intentionswill make them unwelcome in many homes.

Reduced services. An additional alternativefor communities is to freeze suppression servicesof the fire department at the present level, whileat the same time placing more of the future bur-den for fire protection on the residents of the com-munities. This is not as novel as it may sound.Many communities require buildings of a certainsize or type of occupancy to have sprinkler sys-tems, in whole or in part, and many require thatmajor industrial plants have their own fire bri-gades. By spreading such requirements to otherclasses of buildings, communities can reduce firelosses without further taxing the capabilities of thefire department. In many countries, we might add,preventing destructive fire is regarded primarilyas the responsibility of the property owner, not thefire department.

Private contracting. A further choice, ladenwith controversy, is to contract for fire serviceswith a private firm. Many of the Nation’s earlyfire companies were incorporated under State lawand provided their services on a contract basis.Private contract companies exist in parts of Ten-nessee and Arizona.

Some city managers have been attracted to theidea of private contracting on the grounds that aprivate company is more likely to exhibit soundmanagement practices, efficiency, and innovation

2Crescent City, Ill., learned this painful lesson in thesummer of 1970. when a derailed tank car filled with pro-Dane gas tore open and burned. and six other tank carsexploded in a chain reaction, sometimes hurtling like rock-ets hundreds of feet. Despite the efforts of 250 firefightersand 58 pieces of apparatus, 64 people were injured, 24living quarters were destroyed, and 90 percent of the busi-ness district was wiped out.

than an arm of the government. On the otherhand, the pressures to make a profit run counterto the fundamental aims of the fire services---tosave as many lives, and to reduce as many in-juries and property losses, as possible. A commu-nity considering contract service must define itsrequirements and standards of performance verycarefully. It must have continuing proof, throughthe company’s records of performance, that com-munity expectations are being met. (Once it hasdrawn a contract with adequate provisions, acommunity must face the possibility that no en-trepreneur will come forward to assume the risks.)

Governmental contracting. Many communi-ties have mutual-aid agreements with neighboringcommunities so that they work together to copewith major fires. A more formal banding to-gether occurs when a community pays a neigh-boring or encompassing political jurisdiction toprovide it fire protection. The Los Angeles CountyFire Department serves 35 communities on thisbasis. Services provided range from paramedicteams to forest fire suppression. Communitiesbenefit from the availability of equipment andspecialized services that they could hardly affordon their own.

Regionalization. Contracts between govern-ments are but one route to a very successfulmethod of improving the fire services. Anotherroute is through regionalization.

The experience of Great Britain with regionali-zation is instructive. During World War II, thatcountry’s fire services were nationalized for thesake of defense. After the war, the fire serviceswere denationalized but, rather than being di-vided into the 1,500 jurisdictions that had existedbefore the war, they were consolidated into about150 fire jurisdictions. Resources were pooled, andeconomic efficiency was gained through the elimi-nation of duplicated services. In particular, theadvantages cited of the British experience were:l More efficient manning through the combining

of small companies;l Greater operational effectiveness through bet-

ter manned companies, uniform fire suppres-sion methods, direct control of response of allcompanies (rather than depending on mutualaid arrangements like those in many Americancommunities), and the ability to concentratemanpower rapidly at major fires;

AMERICA BURNING 23

l Better communications;l Better training facilities as a result of a larger

tax base supporting them;l More uniform regulatory code enforcement;l Economies effected through large volume pur-

chases and standardization of parts;l Better recordkeeping with less total effort.

While regionalization has succeeded in someareas of the United States, it has been stoutlyresisted in other areas. Fire departments, especiallyvolunteer departments, have developed an espritde corps and a pride in their achievements, andthey are understandably reluctant to sacrificethe measure of autonomy that regionalizationwould require. Having raised, through donations,$50,000 to buy a fire truck, they are reluctant torelinquish any control of it. Companies that havedeveloped personnel and operational policieswhich they feel are superior to those of other com-panies in the region fear they might have to givethem up for the sake of regional uniformity.Others argue that enlarged jurisdictions put con-trol in the hands of people not familiar with localconditions, lessen civic interest in the fire services,and introduce morale problems as a result of lesspersonal relationships in the larger organization.And some fear that regionalization would phaseout some companies in the name of efficiency,thereby increasing response distances to fires insome areas.

With careful planning, however, fears can beabated and the real problems overcome. Further-more, if the protection of the public is not first-rate, then the effort needs to be made. It behoovescounty governments, and municipal governmentsin which several independent fire companies stillexist, to explore means of effecting regionaliza-tion of their fire services, At a minimum, such ex-plorations should cover formal arrangements formutual aid, especially during large fires; the shar-ing of management and of specialized functions,such as arson investigation and fire safety educa-tion; centralization of purchasing and training;uniformity in all important practices; standardi-zation of reporting procedures; and the institutionof an area-wide communications and dispatchingsystem.

State governments have an obligation to pro-mote regional approaches to fire protection. Asit is now, many States have laws that hamper co-

24 ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

operative arrangements among local jurisdic-tions. The Commission recommends that lawswhich hamper cooperative arrangements amonglocal fire jurisdictions be changed to remove therestrictions.

Fire Protection Planning

Which, if any, of the foregoing alternatives isappropriate for a community will depend on itscareful analysis of present conditions and direc-tions of future growth.

Fire protection is only one of many communityservices. Not only must it compete for dollars withother municipal needs, such as the education sys-tem and the police department, but, in planningfor future growth, the fire protection system musttake into account the changes going on elsewherein the community. For example, if a slum area isto be torn down and replaced with high-riseapartment buildings, that will change the fireprotection needs of the area. Changes in zoningmaps will also change the fire protection needs indifferent parts of the community.

To cope with future growth, local administra-tors are turning increasingly to the concept ofmuster planning of municipal functions. Suchplans include an examination of existing pro-grams, projections of future needs of the commu-nity, and a determination of methods to fill thoseneeds. They seek the most cost-effective alloca-tions of resources to help assure that the needswill be met.

A major section of a community general planof land use should be a Master Plan for FireProtection., written chiefly by fire departmentmanagers. This plan should, first of all, be consist-ent with and reinforce the goals of the city’s over-all general plan. For example, it should plan itsdeployment of manpower and equipment accord-ing to the kind of growth, and the specific areasof growth, that the community foresees. It shouldset goals and priorities for the fire department. Notonly is it important to set objectives in terms oflives and property to be saved, but also to decideallocations among fire prevention inspection, firesafety education, and fire suppression as the bestway to accomplish the objectives.

Having established goals, the plan should seekto establish “management by objectives” withinthe fire department. This operates on the principle

that management is most effective when each per-son is aware of how his tasks fit into the overallgoals and has committed himself to getting spe-cific jobs done in a specified time.

Because fire departments exist in a real worldwhere a variety of purposes must be served witha limited amount of money, it is important thatevery dollar be invested for maximum payoff, Thefire protection master plan should not only seek toprovide the maximum cost-benefit ratio for fireprotection expenditures, but should also estab-lish a framework for measuring the effectivenessof these expenditures.

Lastly, the plan should clarify the fire protectionresponsibility for other groups in the community,both governmental and private.

The Commission recommends that every localfire jurisdiction prepare a master plan designedto meet the community’s present and futureneeds in fire protection, to serve as a basis forprogram budgeting, and to identify and imple-ment the optimum cost-benefit solutions in fireprotection. Wherever possible, this should be aregional jurisdiction embracing several politicaljurisdictions-for example, county-wide or largerin rural areas and metropolis-wide in urban areas.(In Chapter 4 we discuss the tools to carry out thisprogram.) In other chapters we recommend Fed-eral assistance, in the form of grants for equipmentand training, to local fire departments to improvetheir reduction of fire losses.

Such assistance should be in response only towell-substantiated needs. Hence, the Commissionrecommends that Federal grants for equipmentand training be available only to those fire juris-

dictions that operate from a federally approvedmaster plan for fire protection.

The Commission recognizes that the plannerwho sets out in search of the most cost-effectivesolutions to his local fire problems is faced withscanty data on which to make such decisions.What is the difference in performance, if any, be-tween a fire station that serves a 12-block radiusand one that serves a six-block radius? How isperformance affected by the addition or subtrac-tion of one man on a pumper? What are the haz-ards most important to eliminate through buildingand fire prevention codes and enforcement?

There is a ‘dearth of systematic studies of meth-ods of fire protection. We have advocated thatmaster plans include provisions for evaluatingvarious approaches to fire protection, but untilsuch time as evaluation can be made, master plan-ning will be a very inexact approach to rationaliz-ing fire protection. The need is not only for moresystematic studies of methods of fire protection,but for a centralized office to collect and dis-seminate evaluation data, so that communitiescan learn from each other. The Commission rec-ommends that the proposed United States FireAdministration act as a coordinator of studiesof fire protection methods and assist local juris-dictions in adapting findings to their fire protec-tion planning. In this endeavor the U.S. FireAdministration should work closely with otherFederal agencies, such as the National Bureau ofStandards, the Department of Agriculture, andwith private fire protection groups such as theJoint Council of National Fire Service Organiza-tions and the National Fire Protection Association.

AMERICA BURNING 25

THE FIRE SERVICES

4PLANNING FOR FIRE PROTECTIONSetting sights upon the future of fire protection inthis Nation, as this Commission is charged to do,brings into focus a major need underlying manyothers: Planning.

Fire protection has been largely a local respon-sibility, and for good reasons it is destined to re-main so. Each community has a set of conditionsunique to itself, and a system of fire protectionthat works well for one community cannot be as-sumed to work equally well for other communities.To be adequate, the fire protection system mustrespond to local conditions, especially to changingconditions. Planning is the key: Without local-level planning, the system of fire protection is aptto be ill-suited to local needs and lag behind thechanging needs of the community.

Excellent fire protection-for example, in theform of automatic extinguishing systems-lieswithin technical grasp, and certainly lies withinthe resources of most communities to provide.Even with considerable public support, this pro-tection would require many years to accomplish.In the meantime, in every fire jurisdiction-whether a municipality, county, or region-standards aiming at a significant increase in fireprotection must be set. Among the concepts tobe defined:

l Adequate level of fire protection.. The ques-tion of “adequacy” addresses itself not only today-to-day normal needs, but to major con-tingencies that can he anticipated and to futureneeds as well. What is needed is a definition of“optimal” protection-in contrast to “mini-mal” protection, which fails to meet contingen-cies and future needs, and “maximal” protec-tion, which is more than the community canafford.

l Reasonable community costs. Fire, both asthreat and reality, has its costs: property losses,deaths, injuries, hospital bills, lost tax revenues,plus the costs of maintaining fire departments,paying fire insurance premiums, and provid-ing built-in fire protection. Each communitymust decide on an appropriate level of invest-ment in fire protection. Some costs beyond thepublic’s willingness to bear should be trans-ferred to the private sector-as when buildingsover a certain size or height or with a certainoccupancy are required to have automatic ex-tinguishing systems.

l Acceptable risk. A certain level of losses fromfire must be accepted as tolerable simply be-cause of the limited resources of the community.Conditions that endanger the safety of citizens

AMERICA BURNING 27

and firefighters beyond the acceptable risk musthe identified as targets for reduction.Consideration of these matters helps to deter-

mine what functions and emphasis should be as-signed to the fire department, other municipaldepartments, and the private sector, both now andin the future, It helps to define new policies, laws,or regulations that may be needed. Most impor-tant, consideration of these matters makes clearthat fire safety is a responsibility shared by thepublic and private sectors. Because the fire depart-ment cannot prevent all fire losses, formal obliga-tions fall on owners of certain kinds of buildingsto have built-in fire protection. For the same rea-son, private citizens have an obligation to exerciseprudence with regard to fire in their daily lives.But prudence also requires education in fire safety,and the obligation to provide that education ap-propriately falls in the public sector, chiefly thefire department. The public sector-again, chieflythe fire department-also has an obligation to seethat requirements for built-in protection in theprivate sector are being met.

A fire department, then, has more than one re-sponsibility. Nor are the responsibilities just men-tioned exhaustive. At least eight important func-tions for fire departments can be identified:l Fire suppression. Firefighters need proper

training and adequate equipment for savinglives and putting out fires quickly, and also fortheir own safety.

l Life safety-paramedical services. Capabili-ties needed during fires and other emergenciesinclude first aid, resuscitation, and possibly par-amedical services. (By “paramedical services”we mean emergency treatment beyond ordinaryfirst aid, performed by fire service personnelunder supervision-through radio communica-tion, for example--of a physician.)

l Fire prevention. This includes approvingbuilding plans and actual construction, inspect-ing buildings, their contents, and their fireprotection equipment, public education, andinvestigating the causes of fires to serve as aguide to future priorities in fire prevention.

l Fire safety education. Fire departments havean obligation to bring fire safety education, notonly into schools and private homes, but alsointo occupancies with greater than average firepotential or hazard to people, such as restaur-ants, hotels, hospitals, and nursing homes.

l Deteriorated building hazards. In coordina-tion with other municipal departments, fire de-partments can work to abate serious hazards tohealth and safety caused by deteriorated struc-tures or abandoned buildings.

l Regional coordination. Major emergenciescan exceed the capabilities of a single fire de-partment, and neighboring fire jurisdictionsshould have detailed plans for coping with suchemergencies. But effectiveness can also beimproved through sharing of day-to-day opera-

Master Planning for fire protection requires consideration of a community’s future pattern of growth and its likely needs.

28 PLANNING FOR FIRE PROTECTION

tions--as, for example, an area-wide communi-cation and dispatching network.

l Data development. Knowledge of how well afire department is doing, and of how practicesshould change to improve performance, de-pends on adequate record-keeping.

l Community relations. Fire departments arerepresentative of the local community that sup-ports them. The impression they make on citi-zens affects how citizens view their government.Volunteer departments dependent on privatedonations must, of course, also be concernedwith their community relations. Moreover, sincefire stations are strategically located through-out the community, they can serve as referralor dispensing agencies for a wide range of muni-cipal services.As communities set out to improve their fire

protection, it is not the fire department alone theymust consider. The police have a role in reportingfires and in handling traffic and crowds duringfires. The cooperation of the building departmentis needed to enforce the fire safety provisions ofbuilding codes. The work of the water departmentin maintaining the water system is vital to fire sup-pression. In the realm of fire safety education, thepublic schools, the department of recreation, andthe public library can augment the work of the firedepartment. Future development and planningwill influence the location of new fire stations andhow they will be equipped.

These are just the obvious examples of inter-dependence. So seemingly trivial a matter as themanner in which house numbers are assigned andposted can affect the ability of fire departments torespond quickly and effectively to emergencies.

The Master Plan for Fire Protection

In Chapter 3 we proposed that each local firejurisdiction in the Nation develop a master planfor fire protection. The master plan, we pointedout, should set goals and priorities for the fire serv-ices, designed to meet the changing needs of thecommunity. It should seek to allocate resourcesfor the maximum payoff in fire protection, and itshould provide for a data system for continualmonitoring of cost-effectiveness.

1 As we recommended there, wherever possible thisshould be a regional jurisdiction embracing several polit-ical jurisdictions-for example, county-wide or larger inrural areas, and metropolis-wide in urban areas.

A look at how one city has developed a masterplan is instructive. Several years ago, the city ofMountain View, Calif.,² began to prepare itsGeneral Plan of Land Use. As a statement of firedepartment needs, the city manager’s office wasprepared to accept the recommendations of theAmerican Insurance Association (which at thattime had responsibility for the Grading Schedule).These recommendations called for eight fire sta-tions in Mountain View, with five men per enginecompany and six to seven men per truck companyif the city wanted to improve the insurancegrading.

The fire chief interceded to suggest that deeperstudy would lead to a different set of goals for thefire department. He proposed a “philosophy of fireprotection” for Mountain View with two aspects.First, emphasis should be on preventing fire losses,chiefly through code enforcement and control ofcontents and activities within structures. Second,the fire department can cope with emergenciesonly to a certain level. “Where the normal antici-pated potential for emergencies exceeds theplanned capability of the on-duty fire force, de-velopers and operators of buildings and businesseswill be responsible for providing the balance offire protection.” Usually this would mean someform of built-in fire protection.

In developing a master plan for fire protection,the Mountain View fire chief and his staff took acareful look at recent fire experience. From thatstudy, they were able to project that apartmenthouse and industrial fires would be an increasingburden on the department. By examining thecauses of recent fires, they were able to set priori-ties for fire safety education and code enforcement.They were also able to arrive at a definition of“adequate” fire protection service, which includedthe provision that firefighting forces arrive within4 minutes after the emergency has been reported.

The chief and his staff also examined the capa-bilities of the fire department’s equipment to sup-press large fires. This led to recommendations thatthe building code be amended to require all non-residential occupancies over 5,000 square feet tohave approved fire detectors, and all over 10,000square feet to have automatic sprinkler systems

3 Appendix VI contains the Mountain View MasterPlan for Fire Protection. This is part of the overall GeneralPlan of Land Use.

AMERICA BURNING 29

DEVISING A FIRE PROTECTION PLAN

The following can serve as guidelines to fire department administrators for developing andpresenting a master plan for fire protection:

Phase I1. Identify the fire protection problems of

the jurisdiction.2. Identify the best combination of public

resources and built-in protection required tomanage the fire problem, within acceptablelimits :

(a) Specify current capabilities and futureneeds of public resources ;

(b) Specify current capabilities and futurerequirements for built-in protection.

3. Develop alternative methods that willresult in trade-offs between benefits and risks.

4. Establish a system of goals, programs, andcost estimates to implement the plan:

(a) The process of developing departmentgoals and programs should include maxi-mum possible participation of fire de-partment personnel, of all ranks;

(b) The system should provide goals andobjectives for all divisions, supportive ofthe overall goals of the department;

(c) Management development programsshould strive to develop increased ac-ceptance of authority and responsibilityby all fire officers, as they strive to ac-complish established objectives andprograms.

Phase II1. Develop, with the other government agen-

cies, a definition of their roles in the fire pro-tection process.

2. Present the proposed municipal fire pro-tection system to the city administration forreview.

3. Present the proposed system for adoptionas the fire protection element of the jurisdic-tion’s general plan. The standard process for de-velopment of a general plan provides the firedepartment administrator an opportunity to in-form the community leaders of the fire protec-tion goals and system and to obtain theirsupport.

Phase IIIIn considering the fire protection element the

governing body of the jurisdiction will have topay special attention to:

1. Short- and long-range goals,2. Long-range staffing and capital improve-

ment plans,3. The code revisions required to provide fire

loss management.

Phase IVThe fire loss management system must be

reviewed and updated as budget allocations,capital improvement plans, and code revisionsoccur. Continuing review of results should con-centrate on these areas :

1. Did fires remain within estimated limits?Should limits be changed?

2. Did losses prove to be acceptable?3. Could resources be decreased or should

they be increased?

in addition. In recognition that most deaths inresidential fires are from smoke inhalation, theyrecommended that smoke detectors and sprinklerheads be required at the top of the stairwell in alltwo-story residences.

The Mountain View chief and his staff inven-toried the fire department, in terms of both per-sonnel and equipment, and then projected addi-tional needs of manpower and capital investmentsover a lo-year period. In developing the masterplan, the chief and his assistants made a detailedlist of objectives, in order of priority, not only forthe department as a whole, but for the chief, as-sistant chiefs, battalion chiefs, and captains. Theyestablished a timetable for implementing specialevents, such as company inspections and arson

30 PLANNING FOR FIRE PROTECTION

seminars. To make sure the fire prevention bureauand firefighters understood their responsibilitiesin fire inspection, they listed every kind of occu-pancy in the city and assigned each category toone or the other. Another detailed listing set forthclearly the fire protection responsibilities of othercity departments, such as the police, water, engi-neering, and planning departments.

The kind of study Mountain View has beenconducting is not costly. Certainly it is not ex-pensive in light of the cost-effectiveness it promisestaxpayers of that city. The data from which itsprojections are derived are mostly data fire depart-ments ought to be collecting every day as a meansof continually monitoring their effectiveness. Yetwe recognize that many local and county govern-

ments are financially strapped ; they are hardput to provide adequate services for today, muchless to plan for better services tomorrow. They willneed help tomorrow to improve fire protection,but they need help today to determine what thoseimprovements should be.

The planning we have called for does morethan place fire department activities on a rationalfooting; it requires fire departments to considermeans of reducing fire losses beyond mere firesuppression. It calls for a broader approach,which may require changes in laws and codesas well as increased emphasis on fire preventionand fire safety education by fire departments.This broader approach, which might be termed“fire loss management,” is a radical departure formany communities.

Some fire departments will lack the expertiseand management ability to devise master planson their own. If they have been relying solely onthe Grading Schedule, they will find that the mas-ter plan involves attention to many more factorsand calls for custom-tailoring future priorities tomeet local conditions. For the first time, they mayfind it necessary to call in fire protection engineersand management consultants to aid in establish-ing levels of fire protection and methods to obtainthose levels. The Commission recommends thatthe proposed United States Fire Administrationprovide grants to local fire jurisdictions for de-veloping master plans for fire protection. Fur-ther, the proposed U.S. Fire Administrationshould provide technical advice and qualifiedpersonnel to local fire jurisdictions to help themdevelop master plans.

The Impetus for Change

Every system has advantages and disadvantages.No one is motivated to change a system or patternof behavior when the advantages seem to lie withthe status quo and the disadvantages with thecontemplated change. Change toward fire lossmanagement will be attractive only if the rewardsof the proposed practices and the penalties ofexisting practices are seen to outweigh the re-wards for existing practices and the penalties as-sociated with change. If the opposite holds true,then there will be little impetus to move in thedirection of fire loss management.

One of the jobs of the US. Fire Administra-tion will be to persuade local governments thatthe rewards lie in a change toward fire lossmanagement, penalties in the status quo. A fewof the advantages of the fire loss managementapproach deserve mention here. It puts planningfor the future on a sound basis and makes it easierto defend budget requests each year. It brings thetop levels of local government, who don’t under-stand fire department program needs, into activeparticipation in planning the community’s totalfire protection. It brings from “under the carpet”emergency situations beyond the capabilities ofthe fire department and makes clear what will bedone in such cases. The approach provides firedepartments with a management system that canweed out outmoded practices and justify the prac-tices they retain. Lastly, it can restructure fire-fighters’ jobs to make them more productive tothe citizenry-and more rewarding to the fire-fighter.

AMERICA BURNING 31

THE FIRE SERVICES

5FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL

Common sense tells us that, once a destructive firehas begun, the effectiveness of the fire departmentin reducing life and property losses depends, to alarge extent, on ( 1) how soon firefighters arriveat the scene and (2) what they and their equip-ment do after they have arrived.

Thus, manpower is a key factor in fire suppres-sion. Quick response requires not only that firestations and fire trucks be placed in enough loca-tions, but that the fire houses be adequatelymanned. And while it is important that equip-ment at the fire scene be adequate to the task (aconcern we discuss in Chapter 7), it is equallyimportant that there be enough firefighters, ade-quately trained, to use the equipment effectively.

Manpower is also a key factor in fire preven-tion. Efforts to inspect buildings for fire safetyand to educate the public about fire hazards re-quire the actions of specially trained people,

Common sense tells us, therefore, that changesin manning of fire departments (especially ifthey have responsibilities for fire prevention aswell as suppression ) affect the ability of thosedepartments to control life and property lossesfrom fire. Changes in manning, one would ex-pect, also affect the rate at which firefighters sus-tain injuries. By changes in manning we mean

not only the addition or subtraction of firemen,but changes in departmental entrance require-ments, changes in training, changes in physicalconditioning, and changes in the way manpoweris deployed.

But precisely how do such changes affect firelosses or firefighter injuries? As was true of someof the questions in Chapter 3, good answers donot exist. Almost no data-gathering and almostno systematic studies have been performed tocorrelate various manpower strategies witheffectiveness.

Such questions are not idle ones. In a poll con-ducted for Nation’s Cities in February 1972,33 percent of the responding cities reported thattheir fire departments were manned at under au-thorized levels. The International Association ofFire Fighters, among others, is concerned thatcuts in manpower, made in the name of economy,may be exposing firefighters to greater risks ofinjuries. Fire chiefs worry because layoffs ofyounger men are robbing their departments offuture leaders. The fire insurance industry is con-cerned that manpower cuts may lead to an in-crease of large-loss fires. Citizens, too, worry aboutreduced fire protection and the effect of under-manning on their insurance rates.

AMERICA BURNING 33

In the absence of cost-effectiveness studies ofvarious manpower strategies, who can say whatthe effects of manpower cuts are likely to be?But this is not solely a scientific question; it hasa moral dimension as well. Saving lives, reducingproperty losses, and preventing firefighter injuriesare far more important considerations than effi-ciency in government. It is far better to err on theside of overmanning than to risk the public’s safetythrough manpower cuts. Economy-minded gov-erntments should be concerned with getting greaterproductivity from their fire departments, not withsaving dollars to the possible detriment of theircitizens’ safety.

Pressure Toward Better Utilization

Fire departments cannot continue to base theirmanpower practices on past experience andhunches. The economic pressures on local govern-ments translate into a need to base manpowerpolicies on a firm foundation of proven cost-effec-tiveness, There are other pressures in this direc-tion as well :

Public expectations. Fire departments are notthe only municipal service under pressure to jus-tify their policies. The fact that other departmentsof local government are under similar pressuresuggests that the departments that come forwardwith the best analyses are likely to convince localofficials and the public that their needs are valid.If fire departments lag behind, they are likely tobe treated with indifference. If fire departmentscome forward with bond issues for new equip-ment and facilities based on inadequate studies,they are apt to encounter stiff resistance fromthose public officials and influential citizens wholive in a world of cost-benefit analyses and trade-off studies.

Other pressures arise when public expectationsexceed what the fire department is delivering.Many citizens arc bothered by their perceptionof the paid firefighter as one who spends most ofhis duty time in idleness. While in many commu-nities this impression is out of date, the fact thatthe impression lingers should concern fire depart-ment administrators. In some communities, onthe other hand, the public has come to expect thefire service to handle any life safety emergency. Ifthe fire department does not live up to thisexpectation, the public may conclude that fire

department manpower is not worth its costs totaxpayers.

The changing environment. Another pres-sure toward placing manpower practices on amore rational basis stems from changes that haveoccurred in our urban society and in fire prob-lems. Take, for example, the high-rise building,a special problem to which more and more firedepartments are being introduced. Heights ex-ceed ladder reach. Air and heating ducts, inmany cases, rapidly spread fire and smoke, some-times faster than a heavily populated buildingran be evacuated. Windows may be sealed, caus-

34 FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL

Using firefighters in fire prevention work increases their productivity and helps to reduce fire losses.

ing heat to build up. These and other special desirability of specialization within the depart-problems require not only an adequate number ments increases.of firefighters at the scene, but firefighters who are Equal opportunity considerations. Moral con-trained to deal with the special hazards and who siderations dictate, and Federal law requires,’are effectively managed in the team effort to put that entrance-level requirements for fire depart-

out the fire.Fire departments have been growing larger as

the Nation becomes more urbanized. Shoppingcenters and other commercial complexes aresprouting up in rural areas, putting increased de-mands on their fire departments, With the grow-ing size of fire departments and the growingcomplexity of the hazards in the environment, the

1 The equal employment opportunity provisions of theCivil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) apply to all firedepartments except those that are purely volunteer andwithout any quasi-governmental attributes, and those de-partments with fewer than 15 employees. In court de-cisions, purely volunteer departments have been foundexempt from the provisions only if they function withoutany significant governmental sponsorship or aid and with-out any privilege to claim government benefits.

AMERICA BURNING 35

ments be related only to the performance require-ments of the job. This is to prevent discriminationagainst minorities in hiring. It is our observationthat many fire departments have quite some dis-tance to go to fulfill this need. Too many entrancetests expect skills unrelated to firefighting; someput so much emphasis on administrative skills thatthey appear to be saying, “In every firefighterthere must be a fire chief waiting to be dis-covered.” Too few tests, on the other hand, relateto the skills a firefighter needs. Only recently, infact, have any attempts been made to correlateentrance examination scores, fire school scores,and on-the-job performance.

What Can Be Done?

What we have said thus far about manpower con-siderations in the fire services suggests severalareas of research that need to be pursued.Specifically, the Commission recommends thatthe proposed United States Fire Administrationsponsor research in the following areas:

productivity measure of fire departments.How do various manning strategies affect theability of a fire department to put out fires andrescue fire’s victims? How can firefighters’ re-sponsibilities be extended into new areas, espe-cially into fire prevention efforts or non-fireemergency rescue, without jeopardizing firesuppression and rescue?job analyses. Different fire departments ren-der different kinds of services, depending ontheir assigned responsibilities and the kinds ofhazards that exist in the environment they serve.What skills are required of firefighters andofficers under these varying conditions? Howshould cand ida tes be sc reened fo r thesepositions?firefighter injuries. How can injuries be re-duced? For example, are firefighters taking un-necessary risks to save abandoned buildings?(In this area there is a need for studies of fire-men’s protective equipment, which we discussin Chapter 7.)fire prevention efforts. What kinds of edu-cational programs effectively reduce burn in-ju r ies? What k inds o f hazards a re mos timportant to eliminate? How can fire depart-ment inspections and educational programs bemade most effective?

In all these areas of research, a very usefulmethod is to compare the performance of fire de-partments using different strategies in attackingthe problem under study, and then to isolate thefactor that makes the difference in perfomance.This means that fire departments under studymust keep adequate records of their performance.Impact must be considered. In evaluating the rel-ative importance of a particular fire hazard, forexample, it is not enough to record the number ofinspections made (input) and then the frequencywith which the unsafe practice occurs (output).It is necessary that the number of fires attributableto-or aggravated by-the unsafe practice beevaluated (impact), (Note that input over im-pact in dollars is the cost-benefit ratio.)

Since the research needs are urgent and shouldnot await pursuit until a U.S. Fire Administrationis established, the Commission urges the Federalresearch agencies, such as the National ScienceFoundation and the National Bureau of Stand-ards, to sponsor research appropriate to theirrespective missions within the areas of produc-tivity of fire departments, causes of firefighter in-juries, effectiveness of fire prevention efforts, andthe skills required to perform various fire depart-ment functions,

The emergence of guidelines for fire services de-velopment through federally sponsored researchwill be a long step forward. But to implement thefindings to meet local conditions, expert leader-ship in fire departments is needed.

The linking of “expert” with “leadership” isvital. Most American fire departments are strongin leadership and weak in management expertise.The typical hiring and promotion system-inwhich everyone from the chief on down startedas a rookie fireman-has guaranteed good lead-ers who understand the needs of the men underthem and are respected by their subordinates. Butfire departments could profit from competition forcertain leadership positions from outside fire de-partments. They need qualified planners whoseexpertise lies in fire protection engineering, oper-ations research, and systems studies rather thanfirefighting. This is especially true in larger de-partments where, further, specialists in budgeting,personnel, and community relations need not befirefighters. The experience of other kinds of orga-nizations, moreover, shows that thinking can be-

36 FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL

come stale and practices inbred when no outsideentry is permitted. The Commission recommendsthat the Nation’s fire departments recognize ad-vanced and specialized education and hire orpromote persons with experience at levels com-mensurate with their skills.

Presently, the retirement systems of most firedepartments discourage hiring from outside atany level above that of basic firefighters. For ex-ample, in many departments, only those who joinbetween the ages of 21 and 30 arc eligible for re-tirement benefits. Seldom are retirement systemcredits portable; a fireman who transfers to an-other department must begin building creditsanew, as though he were a rookie firefighter. TO

encourage greater opportunity for. choice for fire-fighters and officers, the vesting of retirementrights and transfer of retirement credits to otherjurisdictions needs to be made possible. The sub-ject of lateral transfer should be studied in detailthrough a project sponsored by the proposed U.S.Fire Administration. A major objective should beto determine ways in which personnel can transferbetween fire departments and retain all retirementrights.

As important as we consider flexible hiringpractices, we do not mean to depreciate the valueof training within fire departments. At the outsetof this chapter we said that one of the importantways to change fire department manning is tochange training programs. Improvements intraining can favorably influence a department’seffectiveness-in saving lives, reducing propertylosses, and preventing injuries to firefighters.

The quality of training given America’s fire-fighters and officers varies widely. It is not diffi-cult to see why. There are no national trainingrequirements for firemen, and only 15 States havetraining standards which all firemen must meet.For volunteer firefighters there are no financial in-centives and sometimes little opportunity tofurther their training. For paid departments aswell as volunteer ones, training is an expensiveundertaking that removes the trainees from usefulservice for a period of time. Many communities, ifcalled upon to augment their fire departmenttraining, simply could not afford to. The Com-mission recommends a program of Federal fi-nancial assistance to local fire services to upgradetheir training.’ To qualify for this assistance, a

fire jurisdiction should be required to present amaster plan for fire protection substantiating theneed for further training.

As we indicated earlier, entrance requirementsfor the Nation’s fire departments also vary widely,and too few tests meet the Federal requirementsthat they be related only to the performance re-quirements of the job applied for. Because of theconservative hiring and promotion practices offire departments, too many tests emphasize theapplicant’s potentiality for moving far up in rank.Better training programs, together with greaterwillingness of departments to hire at all ranksfrom outside, would diminish the need for thisemphasis. A fair and job-related test, which theJoint Council of National Fire Service Organiza-tions is now working on, will, in turn, create pres-sures for better training and more liberal hiringand promotion practices,

It is our concern for the rights of America’sracial minorities which prompts our urging thatentrance tests be fair and job-related. But we be-lieve even further steps are necessary to overcomethe effects of years of discrimination in many de-partments. It is not enough for fire departmentsto establish fair standards in hiring; they mustreach out to minority communities and activelyseek recruits. In the administering of Federalfunds for training or other assistance to localfire departments, the Commission recommendsthat eligibility be limited. to those departmentsthat have adopted an effective, affirmativeaction program related to the employment andpromotion of members of minority groups.

Increasing Productivity: Two Possibilities

The nature of the job of most firefighters requiresmuch standby time which is not devoted to reduc-ing fire losses. Most leaders in the fire servicesagree that the productive time of firefightersought to be increascd. And most agree that what-ever additional services firefighters are called

a In the next chapter, we recommend the establishmentof a National Fire Academy. primarily to provide specialtraining for fire department management. It would beappropriate for the U.S. Fire Administration, throughthe National Fire Academy, not only to channel funds tolocal and regional training programs, but to develop cur-ricula for local use. train local instructors. and providespecial instructors ‘to local and regional’ fire trainingcenters.

AMERICA BURNING 37

upon to render, the services ought to utilize fire-fighters’ special capabilities. Painting street signsand registering bicycles are useful activities, butthey don’t meet this criterion.

Activities which meet this criterion, and whichought to receive topmost priority in extendingfirefighters’ productivity, lie in the area of fire pre-vention. A recurring theme of this report is thata much heavier investment of time and resourcesin fire prevention is the most expeditious route toreduce life and property losses from fire. Whilemany departments recognize responsibilities infire prevention, too few are doing all they shouldor could.

There are many fire prevention activities thatfire departments can undertake. They can con-duct inspections to enforce local codes, ordi-nances, and common-sense fire prevention prac-tices. They can supplement the efforts of othercode inspectors-for example, by reviewing build-ing plans in cooperation with the building de-partment. They can inspect special i tems ofimportance, such as hydrants, sprinkler systems,and standpipes. They can check high-risk areas,such as wooden-structured slums and areas wherebuildings are under construction. For the sakeof pre-fire planning, they can conduct familiariza-tion inspections of structures and areas wheretheir services may be needed someday.

Last but not least, fire departments can con-duct educational programs-not only to teachschool children and heads of households, but alsoto teach employees of hospitals, hotels, and otherpublic buildings of their special responsibilities.These programs should be continuing, year-roundefforts, not simply projects for fire preventionweek.

The payoffs of such efforts lie in reduced de-mands for fire suppression, and reduced deaths,injuries, and property losses. Which of these ef-forts have the greatest payoff is, as we have in-dicated, a question on which appallingly littleresearch has been done. But greater efforts in fireprevention cannot await the arrival of better data.Not for the sake of productivity alone, but for thesake of the public’s safety, the time to get on withit is now.

Another kind of activity that meets the criterionof utilizing firefighter’s special capabilities isemergency ambulance and paramedical service.From time to time, nearly every fire department iscalled upon to respond to emergencies havingnothing to do with fire. Indeed, in some depart-ments, responding to non-fire emergencies is anofficial responsibility and a major part of the de-partment’s workload. But many departmentshave moved gradually toward heavier assump-tion of this responsibility without adequate plan-ning and preparation. As a result, they are stillresponding to non-fire emergencies with fire trucks-an expensive and inappropriate use of equip-ment. Or they are requiring firefighters to handlesome patients they are not trained to handle. Orthey are compiling a poor record of response tonon-fire emergencies because they have an inad-equate communications and deployment system.

There are sound reasons for fire departmentsassuming emergency ambulance and paramedicalfunctions. If fire stations are logically located toguarantee quick response to fires, then ambulancesplaced in fire stations will be logically deployedas well. Secondly, firefighters are, by temperamentand training, people-rescuers, and handling allemergency patients is not a major shift of respon-sibility. Thirdly, a communications system de-signed to get emergency vehicles to the fire scene iswell along the way to sufficiency for handling allemergencies. Lastly, a consideration not to be dis-counted : The provision of ambulance services willenhance the value of the fire department in theeyes of the community that supports it.

The Commission recommends that fire de-partments lacking emergency ambulance, para-medical, and rescue services consider providingthem, especially if they are located in communi-ties where these services are not adequately pro-vided by other agencies, We recognize thatassumption of these responsibilities requires invest-ment in new equipment, in additional trainingprograms, and-most likely-in additional man-power. Also, careful planning is required to en-sure that the general rescue responsibility does notcompromise the fire department’s responsibilitiesin fire protection-and vice versa.

38 FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL

Paramedical and rescue services have, in many communities, become an important part of firefighters’ duties.

AMERICA BURNING 39

THE FIRE SERVICES

6A NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY

Fire department managers have difficult tasksthrust upon them. Every second counts in thebattle against a fire, and they must make quickbut well-informed decisions affecting, at the sametime, the outcome of a fire and the safety of thefirefighters under their command. They must seeto i t tha t the i r f i re f igh te rs a rc adequa te lytrained---not only to fight fires, but to handlefrightened fire victims and administer first aid.Since firefighters have other duties, especially infire prevention education and inspections, theirofficers must ensure that the duties are carried outeffectively. Fire department managers must alsodeal with the public—making sure that the de-partment meets public expectations, and seeking,in turn, public support of the department. Whatmakes these responsibilities particularly difficultis that, in thousands of smaller departments, theyare bound up in a single individual, the fire chief,often a man elected from among the volunteermembership.

Those who bear these responsibilities know thatthe key to their performance, and the perform-ance of those under them, lies in training. At bothState and local levels in this Nation, the quality oftraining ranges from excellence to total absence.Usually the quality of training is tied to economiccircumstances. But poor training programs could

be improved, at little cost, if they followed theexample of outstanding programs. At present,however, there is no systematic, interchange of in-formation among educators in the fire services.

One possible remedy has almost ananimoussupport within the fire suppression and protectionfields—namely, a National Fire Academy. Whatmost experts envision is an institution that notonly has advanced education programs of its own,but also lends help to State and local training andeducational programs. In addition to conductingclasses and seminars at its own facility, the Acad-emy would serve as the hub of an educationalnetwork. The Academy system would use existingfire training school programs, fire science educa-tion programs in community colleges, and firemanagement and fire protection engineering pro-grams at the college or university level in eachState. The Academy would function as the coreof the Nation’s efforts in fire service education--feeding out model programs, curricula, and in-formation, and at the same time receiving helpfuladvice from those schools and the fire services.

The list of advocates of a National FireAcademy includes the International Associationof Fire Chiefs and the International Associationof Fire Fighters. It includes, as well, the NationalFire Protection Association, the Committee on

AMERICA BURNING 41

Fire Research of the National Research Council,the Joint Council of National Fire Service Or-ganizations, the National Association of Mu-tual Insurance Companies, and many more. Asother organizations have done, the Commissionrecommends the establishment of a NationalFire Academy to provide specialized training inareas important to the fire services and to assistState and local jurisdictions in their trainingprograms.

A National Fire Academy could have a numberof salutary effects upon the fire services. Forexample:l The Academy would help fire departments to

reduce injuries, deaths, and property losses. In-dividual fire departments have discoveredsuperior techniques for coping with fires, buttheir successes have not been shared with otherdepartments except through informal channels.Academy courses in command strategy and tac-tics could be attuned to specific categories ofrisk, such as congested cities, industrial com-plexes, and wildlands. Courses in such fieldsas arson investigation, code enforcement, andfire safety education would address themselvesto major ways of reducing fire losses.

l The Academy would increase the attractive-ness of fire service careers. The training oppor-tunities offered by the Academy would makepositions in the fire services intellectually morestimulating.

l Academy training would equip fire service offi-cers with the technical expertise they need intoday’s competitive environments. Courses inmanagement techniques would help chiefs ofpaid departments compete for budgetary dol-lars with other municipal departments; suchcourses would also help them recognize anti-quated practices that should be abandonedSpecial engineering courses would help fireservice managers to assess the relative advan-tages of different pieces of equipment on themarket.

l At the same time, the Academy could help firedepartments shift priorities toward fire preven-tion. One major barrier to such a shift has beenofficial doubt about the effectiveness of fireprevention measures. Academy courses couldacquaint fire services officers, not only with fireprevention practices that work, but also with

42 A NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY

sound record keeping methods that prove thatthey work.

l Officers educated by the Academy probablywould be sought far and wide, with the effectthat fire departments would be encouraged toabandon parochial hiring practices.Volunteer as well as paid fire departments have

need of a National Fire Academy. Many volun-teer departments lack the resources for trainingbeyond a rudimentary level. Indeed, there aremany volunteer firefighters who, having neverbeen exposed to adequate training, don’t fullyappreciate how it could improve their perform-ance and their safety. Their communities harborthe same lack of appreciation, believing that“adequate” fire protection is wholly a matter oftrucks and men to ride them. Because volunteersare part-time firefighters with insufficient time toundertake fire prevention activities, training inthat area has often been neglected. With a lim-ited vision of their community role, many volun-teer departments-but many paid departments aswell-have neglected training in such importantfields as arson investigation and fire-safe design ofstructures.

As we have indicated, the Academy would notsupplant State and local training programs butwould assist them: by identifying and makingavailable course material and demonstration proj-ects, by accrediting programs, and by lendingspecial instructors to these programs. In general,State and local programs would continue to trainfirefighters; the Academy’s own specializedcourses would be for o f f ice rs and of f icercandidates.

In addition, the National Fire Academy couldassist in the development of effective materialsfor public education in fire safety. Assistance tocommunity fire prevention efforts could include,in addition to information, financial support andthe lending of special personnel. The Academycould also offer architects, engineers, code writers,and code inspectors short courses in the fire as-pects of those professions.

One problem that cries out for Academy at-tention is that of arson. As we pointed out inChapter 1, the National Fire Protection Associa-tion estimates that about 7 percent of the Na-tion’s fires are likely the work of arsonists. Manyurban fire chiefs believe the local incidence of

deliberately set fires is far higher. To mount aconcerted attack on arson will require the com-munication of intelligence and expertise fromevery region and locality of the Nation. TheCommission recommends that the proposed Na-tional Fire Academy assume the role of develop-ing, gathering, and disseminating, to State andlocal arson investigators, information on arsonincidents and on advanced methods of arson in-vestigations. Short courses, newsletters, and bul-letins w o u l d b e a p p r o p r i a t e m e a n s o fcommunication.

Lastly, through newsletters and other media ofcontinuing education, the Academy could bringto the attention of the Nation’s fire service leader-ship emerging problems and trends of the fireservices, pioneering efforts by individual fire de-partments, and new developments in fire protec-tion technology.

While there is near-unanimity among fire pro-tection organizations on the need for a NationalFire Academy, proposals regarding its structurevary widely. The Commission recommends thatthe National Fire Academy be organized as adivision of the proposed United States Fire Ad-ministration, which would assume responsibilityfor deciding details of the Academy’s structureand administration. We see the Academy as agrowing organism, the pattern of its growth beingdetermined by a careful and continuing assess-ment of the fire services’ needs. The U.S. Fire Ad-ministration would be in the best position to con-duct this assessment.

One thing is certain: Federal support of theNational Fire Academy, both in its own programsand those it assists at local levels, is vital. Volun-teer firefighters and officers should not be ex-pected to pay for their specialized training andwould probably be unable to take advantage ofthe Academy’s offerings in great numbers if theywere required to do so. Paid firemen in manycommunities are in no better position to get localfunds to subsidize their special training. TheCommission recommends that the full cost ofoperating the proposed National Fire Academyand subsidizing the attendance of fire servicemembers be borne by the Federal Government.Federal assistance for members of paid and volun-teer fire departments would cover cost of travel,tuition, teaching materials, and accommodations.Paid fire departments would be obligated to con-tinue to pay the salaries of students. Full Federalfinancing would not preclude acceptance by theAcademy of grants and other forms of supportfrom government and private sources.

Federal support of the National Fire Academyis a worthwhile endeavor. Through the Academy,the management capabilities of the fire servicescan be improved. Priorities of fire departmentscan be effectively shifted, through Academy train-ing, in the direction of more fire prevention effort,Man’s environment can be made less hazardousthrough special courses in fire-safe design. Andmost important, the National Fire Academy canhelp to reduce life and property losses and injuriesfrom fire.

The National Fire Academy would not supplant local training programs but would provide guidance and assistance.

AMERICA BURNING 43

THE FIRE SERVICES

7EQUIPPING THE FIRE FIGHTER

Of the fire chiefs and firefighters who respondedto our nationwide survey early in 1972, more thanseven out of ten said there is a need for greater in-novation to improve the equipment and protec-tive clothing they use every day.

And no wonder. A quick glimpse at firefightingpractices yields a sampling of where improve-ments can be made:l The breathing apparatus designed for 30 min-

utes’ use typically weighs 30 pounds. Oftenfirefighters reach exhaustion long before their30 minutes are up, The weight of the appara-tus, it seems likely, contributes to the exhaus-tion. In actual use, moreover, a 30-minuteapparatus often provides less than 20 minutes’protection because great exertion requires moreair.

l Most firefighters’ helmets readily conduct heatto the inside of the helmet. Beyond certain tem-peratures, helmets made of hard plastics losestrength and begin to deform.

l Helmets and breathing apparatus alike tend toget snagged by protruding objects. In manyinstances, firemen wearing face masks cannotput on their helmets; the two don’t fit together.

l “Turnout” coats can be virtual sweat boxes,even when there are air vents under the arms.To the extent that turnout coats hinder bodymovements or build up body heat, they con-tribute to the firefighter’s exhaustion.

l A fireman manipulating the controls of anaerial ladder must peer upward many storiesto see how to guide the ladder into position. Ifthe smoke is too thick to see through, he musthave another firefighter, perched precariouslyat the top of the ladder, giving him instructionsas he swings the ladder into posit ion. AS

Howard W. Emmons, professor of mechanicalengineering at Harvard, pointed out in 1968,"A man in Houston, Tex., can manipulate aspace ship photographing the moon, but thefireman must climb up to the top of a 100-footladder to find out just where it is.”These and many other deficiencies have been

around for years, despite the great power ofAmerican ingenuity to innovate to overcometechnological problems. Few equipment manu-facturers can afford to invest heavily in researchand development, especially when the payoff ina fragmented and conservative market is so un-

AMERICA BURNING 45

certain. Marketing is affected by the fact thatmany fire departments simply cannot afford tobuy innovative equipment. Others purchase con-servatively because they lack the technical ex-pertise to evaluate innovative equipment. Becausefiremen typically spend their careers with one de-partment, they become attached to the “tried andtrue” methods of that department.

Of course the fire services are not alone in fac-ing barriers to innovation. In recent years therehas been growing recognition that the innovativeprocess-by which needs get translated into re-search and development projects, and the resultsof research and development get translated intonew products or processes-throughout Americansociety can be improved. In his Message on Sci-ence and Technology in March 1972, the Presi-dent assigned to the National Science Foundationand the National Bureau of Standards responsi-bilities for finding ways to spur innovation. Inresponse, the National Science Foundation estab-lished an Experimental Research and Develop-ment Incentives Program to seek ways of “in-creasing the efficiency and speed of conversion ofresearch and development to new or improvedproducts, processes, and services.” The NationalBureau of Standards launched a similar effort,called the Experimental Technology IncentivesProgram.

The blockages to innovation in the fire serv-ices are many, and they offer a rich vein forscientific prospectors. Moreover, the blockagestogether form a major impediment to “improve-ments in the quality of life,” which the NationalScience Foundation lists foremost among thekinds of innovations to be spurred along. TheCommission urges the National Science Foun-dation, in its Experimental Research and Devel-opment Incentives Program, and the NationalBureau of Standards, in its Experimental Tech-nology Incentives Program, to give high priorityto the needs of the fire services.

Guidelines for Research and Development

The fire services do not need innovation for thesake of innovation, the way car manufacturersneed styling changes to assure themselves newcustomers. The fire services need innovations inequipment to improve their performance. Im-proved performance, in turn, can mean any of the

46 EQUIPPING THE FIRE FIGHTER

four following : saving more lives, reducing deathsand injuries to firefighters, reducing propertylosses, and protecting the public at lower cost.

Clearly, reducing life loss, reducing firefighterinjuries, and reducing property losses are primeconsiderations. Improvements in these areas canbe made simultaneously. A firefighter better pro-tected against injury to himself is, of course, betterequipped to suppress fires and rescue people. Notechnological innovations designed to reduce lifeand property losses should create new risks tofirefighters.

In all research and development efforts, then,effectiveness in lowering firefighter injuries as wellas life and property losses should rank ahead ofdollar savings as a goal. Current technology, forexample, makes feasible automated control of hosepressure at the scene of a fire and could free anadditional fireman-the one now operating thecontrols on the truck manually-for service at thenozzle end of a hose. Yet the job of the man on thepumper is a complicated one. He must see to itthat men holding a hose line do not get thrownby surges in pressure caused by unequal demandsfrom different hose lines. He must cut water pres-sure when crews are endangered by ladder swayand cut pressure when hoses rupture. He must actas a relief man for crews, a reserve for rescue offire victims, and a protector of the pumper fromvandalism. An automated system that left any ofthese protective functions unprovided would bean unacceptable substitute.

A second requirement of research and develop-ment is that they stem from an accurate assess-

With few exceptions (such as this one),firefighters’ helmets have changed littlein design and materials in 50 years.

ment of fire service needs. Almost any piece offire apparatus, for example, can be built bigger,better, and more expensive, with a greater capac-ity to perform its expected functions and impressthe citizenry. But in the real world of tight firedepartment budgets, trade-offs are needed. Thus,the chief emphasis in the development of im-proved firefighting equipment should be on ap-paratus designed to meet most potential fire situa-tions, rather than on equipment rarely needed.More research is also needed to help settle ques-tions of diversity versus standardization. Stand-ardization of fire engine components is desirablefrom the standpoint of bringing down costs. Di-versity may be needed to meet the varying needs ofdifferent communities. The best solutions may liein the middle-that is, with standard modulesthat permit add-on features.

One fire department need that should not besubjected to trade-off or compromise is safety. Atwo-step program of research is needed: to iden-tify features of firefighting equipment that do notadequately protect firemen, then to explore meansof providing such protection.

Thirdly, research and development must takewhole systems, rather than piecemeal , ap-proaches. The complete firefighter’s uniformconsists of turnout coat, trousers, boots, breathingapparatus, gloves, and helmet. It may also consistof a walkie-talkie radio strapped to the body ‘anda hand-held flashlight. Each of these elements hasbeen designed separately without thought to itsrelation to other parts of the uniform. One resulthas already been cited: a breathing apparatus soincompatible with the helmet that the two cannotbe worn together, whereas a face mask and helmetcould be an integrated unit. Turnout coat, trou-sers, and boots are separate items that take timeto don, whereas they could be replaced by a one-piece, zip-up suit. Walkie-talkies and flashlightsare cumbersome appendages, whereas both couldbe integrated into the helmet. A further example:Only the helmet is designed to protect against im-pact injuries (and that, very inadequately),whereas many impact injuries occur on the trunkof the body.

Much of the technology exists for better protec-tive gear. Ideally, product development of an in-tegrated system, not unlike the life support systembuilt into the individually tailored ‘astronauts’

suits, would afford optimum protection. On theother hand, the hard realities of costs and readyavailability of the equipment must be consideredin approaching the ideal. The National Aeronau-tics and Space Administration, in fact, has put itsspace exploration capabilities to work on the prob-lems of developing better breathing apparatus andbetter protective clothing for firefighters. As forhelmets with built-in communications systems,they have long been in use by fighter pilots. Toprovide protection from impact injuries, technol-ogy might be borrowed from bulletproof vestsor even from football players’ protective gear.

At the same time, research and developmentare needed to make incremental improvementsin existing kinds of equipment. The search formajor departures from existing equipment, basedon a systems approach, should not be pursued atthe expense of development of improvements intraditional equipment. There are two reasons forthis. First, the search for major departures is along-term investment, and results are not likely toreach the market for several years to come. Sec-ondly, fire departments cannot afford to discardall the equipment they have now, and adoptionof major departures will be a slow process, ex-tending over many years. Better versions of currenttypes of equipment will be needed for some timeto come.

A single example will suffice. Tests of six typesof turnout coats by the Boston Fire Departmenthave shown that, in each case, the material failsthe flammability test for drapery fabrics used inplaces of public assembly. That more firefighters’coats do not catch fire is due largely to the factthat the heat on the fireman’s exposed hands andface drives him from flames before his coat isendangered. If hands and face can be adequatelyprotected-and the technology exists to do justthat-then there will have to be a correspondingimprovement in the flame resistance of turnoutcoats.

A fifth consideration for research and develop-ment: improvements must be acceptable to firedepartments. Barriers to acceptance of an inno-vation are of several kinds. A new piece of equip-ment may be too expensive in absolute terms:simply beyond a fire department’s budget. It may‘be too expensive in relative terms-that is, offertoo little improvement in performance for the in-

AMERICA BURNING 47

vestment required. It may require skilled opera-tors which fire departments are unable to providewithout further training. There can be psycho-logical barriers as well; if an innovation departstoo radically from traditional practice, it will beresisted.

A related consideration is that developed prod-ucts need to be adapted to users’ capabilities.Human factors engineering-that is, the modifi-cation of equipment design so that the equipmentis comfortable, safe, and easy to use-has beenapplied with success to military and industrialequipment but never, to our knowledge, to firetrucks and other firefighting equipment.

A purchaser of fire equipment must be ableto make comparisons among different pieces ofequipment competing for his dollars. This meansthat names for particular kinds of equipment,descriptions of their functions, and measure-ments of their capacities should be uniformthroughout the fire protection field. While somestandardization exists, confusing discrepanciesare commonplace. One result of these discrepan-cies is that data cannot be compared across dif-ferent fire jurisdictions; for example, a “rescuetruck” is an ambulance in some places, a pickupthat carries firefighters’ rescue equipment in an-other. The National Fire Protection Associationhas published many standards for fire equipmentand an excellent guide called Fire Terminology.But long-established traditions and local customhave not given way totally to NFPA standards.The Commission recommends that the proposedUnited States Fire Administration review cur-rent practices in terminology, symbols, andequipment descriptions, and seek to introducestandardization where it is lacking.

Equipment R. & D.: Reducing Fire Losses

Research and development priorities ought tostem from careful assessment of the needs of thefire services. We can only suggest therefore, notdefine, areas where research would be useful. Thefollowing discussion is a mixture of subjects onwhich little or no research is being done, subjectson which progress is being made, and, indeed,subjects in which demonstration projects havealready proved successful.

Notification. The beginning step in a firedepartment’s effort to put out a fire is notifica-

48 EQUIPPING THE FIRE FIGHTER

Space Age wonders of automation have not yet supplanted the firefighter perched dangerously atop a 100-foot ladder.

AMERICA BURNING 49

tion of the fire’s whereabouts-usually by tele-phone or alarm. Systems exist which sense smoke,products of combustion, heat, or water flow (inan activated sprinkler system) and notify thefire department automatically. Improvements inthe technology of such systems, especially in bring-ing down their cost, might encourage more wide-spread use. Systems based on human activationmight be developed which ( 1) meet the criterionof universal accessibility (as private telephonesdo in many communities) and, at the same time,(2) discourage false alarms (which account fora third of the fire calls in many cities), and (3)provide for the transmittal of qualitative infor-mation about the fire. Some cities are alreadyusing public telephones which require no coinsfor emergency calls. These telephones (if ade-quately maintained against breakdowns and van-dalism), together with private telephones, wouldsubstitute for fire alarm boxes.

Response. Computerized systems for dis-patching firefighters and fire trucks have been in-stalled in a number of cities. Into such systemsare being built retrieval mechanisms that transmitto firefighters floor plans and other helpful infor-mation about the building on fire.

Suppression. Lights, periscopes, or closed-circuit TV might be mounted atop aerial ladders.Sensors to locate trapped victims and chemicaldetectors to warn of dangerous concentrations oftoxic gases are other possibilities. Infrared sensingdevices are available that can locate fires in smoke-filled rooms and fires inside walls, but they needdevelopment and demonstration of their useful-ness to the fire services.

More research is needed on extinguishingagents, hardware, and techniques, to improve theeffectiveness of existing agents and to investigatethe chemical and physical mechanisms of newagents. Water, particularly in its droplet or streamstate, requires further study; there is a controversy,for example, as to whether keeping buildingsclosed and applying water fog is a suitable alter-native to ventilating the fire and attacking withwater streams.

Additives that reduce friction losses in hoseshave proved their effectiveness, but are not widelyused. Foams and dry chemicals have proved theireffectiveness and are being continually improved,but exactly how these agents operate to extinguish

50 EQUIPPING THE FIRE FIGHTER

fire is little understood. More important, lack ofknowledge in flame chemistry inhibits progresstoward radical departures from present extin-guishing methods, such as the use of sound waves.

Lastly, development efforts should be directedtoward reducing the weight of suppression equip-ment, especially hoses and couplings.

Equipment R. & D.: Reducing Fire FighterInjuries

Especially in the realm of fire suppression, tech-nological improvements which reduce firefighterinjuries will improve the effectiveness of fire de-partments in saving lives and reducing propertylosses. Such improvements are worthy of pursuitin their own right, since the risks we currentlyask firefighters to take are unconscionable. Inmany cases, we must assume, the proper protec-tive equipment is not available to firefighters-or,if available, is not being worn. When firefightersdo not wear equipment because it is cumbersomeor uncomfortable, that is, to some extent, an in-dictment of the equipment.

Toxic fumes. The inadequacy of breathingapparatus systems is shown by studies which in-dicate that face masks used by fire departmentsleak to some extent. The National Bureau ofStandards has proposed a program of researchto improve breathing apparatus systems, takinginto account the physiological, human factors,and engineering elements important to their de-sign. The Commission urges rapid implemen-tation of a program to improve breathing appa-ratus systems and expansion of the program’sscope where appropriate.

Impact injuries. The only standard piece ofequipment meant to protect against injuries fromfalling objects or other blows is the helmet. Themost common standard (which many helmets failto meet) is resistance against 40 foot-pounds ofimpact. The British standard is three times ashigh. No attention has been paid to impact pro-tection in turnout coats, despite a Bureau of LaborStatistics study which shows that impact injuriesto the trunk occur 26 times as often as trunk burninjuries.

Over-exertion. While the very nature of fire-fighting invites over-exertion, there are technologi-cal improvements that undoubtedly would reduceinstances of over-exertion. Protective gear could be

improved from the standpoint of weight and free-dom of bodily movement. In addition, lightweightpower tools-for example, for prying open doorsor cutting through walls-would also reduce theneed for physical exertion.

Strains and sprains. Lightweight power toolswould likely reduce strains as well. In addition,failure to apply human factors engineering to thedesign of firefighting equipment has led to strainsand sprains, as it has to over-exertion and otherkinds of casualties. What is needed, for these andother classes of injuries, is thorough study of thekinds of movements and stresses the body sustainsin firefighting.

Heat and burns. Equipment that leaves anypart of the body exposed, or which is easily ignited,openly invites burns and heat injuries. Develop-ment of protective clothing to reduce these haz-ards should be accompanied by the developmentof sensing devices that can warn the firefighterwhen surrounding temperatures are gett ingdangerous.

Getting on With the Job

The foregoing discussion is hardly exhaustive.There needs to be undertaken a definitive studyof the needs of the fire services. Such a studywould have to do more than aggregate what firedepartments say they want; it would have toidentify needs growing out of demonstrable short-comings of current equipment.

The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration undertake acontinuing study of equipment needs of the fireservices, monitor research and development inprogress, encourage needed research and de-velopment, disseminate results, and providegrants to fire departments for equipment pro-curement to stimulate innovation in equipmentdesign. As an interim measure, pending estab-lishment of a U.S. Fire Administration, the Com-mission urges the Join Council of National FireService Organizations to sponsor a study toidentify shortcomings of firefighting equipmentand the kinds of research, development, or tech-nology transfer that can overcome the defi-ciencies. Funding would be appropriately soughtfrom the National Science Foundation or from

the Department of Commerce under the provi-sions of the Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968.

Capabilities for research and development toimprove the effectiveness of the fire services lie inmany places : universities, Federal agencies, non-profit research firms, and the fire equipment in-dustry. Research and development in these placeswill be useful if they are guided by clearly identi-fied needs of the fire services.

Especially as firefighting equipment growsmore complex, it must be designedto be comfortable, safe, and easy to use.

AMERICA BURNING 51

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

8THE HAZARDS WE HAVE CREATEDThe United States is an advanced nation techno-logically and is increasingly urban in character.Another way of saying this is that most Americanslive in an environment of concentrated man-madeobjects. Their homes-which are generally closeto neighboring homes (and sometimes in thesame building) -are complexes of building mate-rials, finishes, chemicals, paper, foodstuffs, andutility systems, all composed of objects processedby man. When the American breadwinner goesoff to work in the morning, he may cross over asmall patch of natural environment called a lawn.But when he arrives at the carport or the streetcorner, he enters another complex, man-madeenvironment : a car, a bus, or a subway. Atwork-whether it is a factory bench, an officedesk, or a sales counter-he is usually among aconcentration of people in a similarly complicatedenvironment of man-made objects, And when thevacationing urbanite seeks escape from this man-made environment, the usual conveyance is aman-made enclosure: if not a car or bus, then atrain or airplane.

In this built environment, as i t is called,Americans live side by side, day and night, withignitable materials, combustible furniture and up-holstery, and products and appliances whichthrough wear or misuse may offer dangerous fire

potential. Fumes from their gasoline, their paintthinner, or their cleaning fluid fill the atmospherewith combustion potential. The structures inwhich they live and work, through flaws in designand poor maintenance, often encourage entrap-ment rather than escape from fire. Few give thesehazards any thought-until a fire occurs.

Available statistics give some idea, if not a com-plete picture, of where the hazards lie in the builtenvironment. Certainly the vast majority-closeto 95 percent-of America’s fire losses, both lifeand property, result from fires in the built en-vironment. Fires in buildings (as opposed to ve-hicle fires)’ account for most of these losses. Ofthe nearly $2.7 billion in property losses sustainedyearly, about 85 cents out of every dollar lost isattributable to a building fire. About two-thirds ofthe 12,000 deaths that occur annually result frombuilding fires. What types of buildings are in-volved offer a key to where the emphasis shouldlie in the effort to reduce the Nation’s fire losses(Table 8-1) .

¹ In 1971, 3,950 died in motor vehicle fires; propertylosses from such fires amounted to $112.7 million or about4 percent of the total national fire problem. Fires in othertransportation systems, such as airplanes, were insignificantin number. but are of concern to us because of the manylives risked in each fire incident.

AMERICA BURNING 53

Table 8-1. Estimated 1971 Building Fire Losses and Relationship to Total Fire Record *

Life loss Property loss FiresCategory

Number Percent Dollars, Percent Number Percentof total Millions of total of total

Residential (houses, apartments and hotels). 6,600 56 874.1 3 1 . 9 6 9 9 , 0 0 0 25.6Commercial (Public assembly, educational,

i n s t i t u t i o n a l , m e r c a n t i l e a n d o f f i c e ) . 970 8 580.5 21.1 141,400 5.2industrial (basic industry, storage, manufac-

turing and miscellaneous) 811.6 29.6 156,500 5.7

Building total 7,570 6 4 $ 2 , 2 6 6 . 2 82.6 996,900 36.5

* From published and unpublished NFPA data. Refer to Appendix V for complete table of fire losses in U. S.

Residences

Of the nearly 1 million building fires that occur-red in 1971, almost seven out of ten occurred inresidential occupancies ( T a b l e 8 - 1 ) ² . T h echances are that the average family will experi-ence one fire every generation serious enough tohave the fire department respond. Residentialfires account for about half of all fire deaths anda third of all property losses. (If the losses fromnon-building fires are excluded, residential firesaccount for about 87 percent of the deaths and 39percent of these property losses [Figure 8-1])From the standpoint of life loss particularly, thestructures in which Americans live must be theprime focus of the national effort to reduce firelosses.

³ This includes apartments, dwellings, hotels and motels,rooming and boarding houses, summer cottages, trailers,mobi le homes , and misce l laneous s t ruc tures .

Figure 8-1. Fires in Buildings, 1971, United States*

The experience of every urban fire departmentconfirms what statistics only suggest: that a dis-proportionate number of residential fires-andfire deaths-occur in low-income neighborhoods.It is not difficult to see why. Crowded conditions,dilapidated buildings, unsafe heaters, and theheavy use of alcohol-all contribute to a higherincidence of fire and a heavier toll in injuries anddeaths. The higher proportion of working mothersmeans more children are left unattended and,hence, more exposed to fire accidents. Theignorance among the poor about fire hazards ismatched by the indifference or inability of land-lords to get rid of the hazards.

But as every urban firefighter can attest, firedoes not victimize the poor only. There is noground for complacency about residential firesamong more affluent cit izens. There, too,

*Estimates from published and unpublished NFPA data.

54 THE HAZARDS WE HAVE CREATED

Fire knows no class distinctions. In this 16-room home in Ohio, it caused $150,000 in damages in 15 minutes.

ignorance breeds indifference. No less than in aslum, a single spark can set off a chain of eventsthat guts a mansion and kills its inhabitants. Fire,like sin, knows no class distinctions.

Commercial and Industrial Fires 3

While commercial occupancies make up about14 percent of all building fires, they result in 25percent of the Nation’s property loss in buildingfires. Likewise, industrial fires are only about 16percent of all building fires but account for 36 per-cent of the building property loss. Together, in-dustrial and commercial fires account for 13 per-cent of deaths in building fires (Figure 8-1) .

Major Fires

The National Fire Protection Association defines

³ “Commerc ia l” inc ludes publ ic and ins t i tu t iona l oc-cupancies, and “industrial” includes storage occupancies.

as a major fire one in which three or more die,or one in which property losses are $250,000 orgreater. (Some fires, of course, meet bothcriteria.)

In 1971, there were 208 fires in which three ormore persons died, but together these fires ac-counted for 8 percent of the fire deaths thatoccurred during that year. In eight out of tencases, these major fires occurred in residences. Inmany instances, late detection of the residentialfires contributed to the heavy losses in lives andproperty-as indicated by the fact that about 80percent of the multiple-death fires occurred be-tween 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. when most people areasleep, as compared with the 20 percent thatoccurred between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. when peo-ple are active.

Those fires producing major property losseswere also a tiny fraction of total fires (0.02 per-

AMERICA BURNING 55

Ind ustrial and warehouse fires occur infrequently, but are difficult to control and often result in huge losses.

56 THE HAZARDS WE HAVE CREATED

cent), but they accounted for 11 percent of thedollar losses in 1971. In all these cases the Buildingwas not sprinklered in the area where the fireoriginated.

Causes and Remedies

It appears that considerably more than half theNation’s fires are caused by the careless actions ofman. The rest have environmental causes, suchas hazardous products, defects in the home, andlightning. A more detailed analysis of the causesof building fires is provided annually by the Na-tional Fire Protection Association (see Table8-2). These are approximations only, based onexperience in typical States. As for causes of fire-related deaths, data from Canada (there are nocomparable U.S. statistics) attribute 71 percentof deaths to man’s actions, 9 percent to productsor processes, and 20 percent to defects in buildings.

Table 8-2. Estimated U.S. Building Fire Causes*

Percent of Percent offires dollar losses

Heating and cookingSmoking and matchesElectricalRubbish, ignition source

unknownFlammable liquid fires and

explosionOpen flames and sparksLightningChildren and matchesExposuresIncendiary, suspiciousSpontaneous ignitionMiscellaneous known

causesUnknown

3

7727272

Total

16 812 416 12

2 617 4 4

100

1

34232

101

100

*NFPA estimates.

The consequences of a fire depend, however,not only on how it starts, but on what happensafter ignition. Human beings can intervene tolessen the consequences of a fire caused by a de-fective product. Products can be designed to les-sen the consequences of human carelessness, asfor example, with matches and cigarettes. Andwhatever the cause of a fire, buildings can bedesigned and maintained to ease fire suppressionand the evacuation of potential fire victims. The

AMERICA BURNING 57

INDUSTRIAL FIRE SAFETY

Although it is recognized that there are stillother important areas for problem solving, itwould be a serious omission if no note weretaken of the many positive strides which havebeen made in the prevention and control of firesby industry, Comparisons of the industrial andresidential losses in the United States show thatindustry appears far in advance in terms of therelative number of lives lost and the dollaramount of property destroyed. In 1971, for ex-ample, the National Fire Protection Associa-tion reported the dollar losses to basic industryand manufacturing occupancies to be $390,-700,000, versus $874,100,000 for residential oc-cupancies; and of the 11,850 lives lost to fire in1971, it is estimated fewer than 1,000 were lostin industry. In addition, the chart below shows atrend in decreasing numbers of fires annuallyin industry.

Industrial Fire Record”

YearNumber of basic

Industry andManufacturing fires

1968 66,0001969 58,5001970 56,2001971 41,300

*NFPA published estimates.

Industry’s success in lowering fire incidence isattributable to the incorporation of featuressuch as sound construction, special attention tohazards, emergency planning, and wide use ofautomatic detection, alarm, and extinguishingdevices.

consequences of fire, in short, depend on man-environment interactions.

We have already addressed the issue of whatfire departments can do to reduce fire losses. InChapter 20 we discuss what citizens can do toreduce fire losses. In this and the next four chap-ters, our concern is not with the human factorsbut with ways of altering the built environmentto reduce fire hazards-through changes in firesafety technology, materials characteristics, build-ing design and construction, and code regulationand enforcement.

The Environment as a Security Blanket

Before turning to environmental factors alone, it

58 THE HAZARDS WE HAVE CREATED

is appropriate to consider one aspect of the man-environment interaction that tends to be over-looked. The ways in which man acts upon theenvironment to cause fire come readily to mind.What is not so obvious is that the built environ-ment influences the behavior of man in a waythat aggravates the fire problem.

The modern urban environment imparts topeople a false sense of security about fire. Crimemay stalk the city streets, but certainly not fire,in most people’s view. In part, this sense of secu-rity rests on the fact there have been no majorconflagrations in American cities in more thanhalf a century. In part, the newness of so manybuildings conveys the feeling that they are invul-nerable to attack by fire. Those who think onlyof a building’s basic structure (not its contents)are satisfied, mistakenly, that the materials-con-crete, steel, glass, aluminum-are indestructibleby fire. Further, Americans tend to take forgranted that those who design their products, inthis case buildings, always do so with adequateattention to their safety. That assumption, too, isincorrect.

Around the turn of the century, in the wake ofmany conflagrations so-called fireproof buildingsbegan to be constructed. They had thick walls andfloors to keep fire from spreading. Like olderbuildings, they still had windows that could beopened to allow heat and smoke to escape. Theyhad fire escapes or internal fire stairs, and seldomwere they too tall for the topmost occupants toescape.

Fires, some of them disastrous, occurred inthese buildings nonetheless. Then, after WorldWar II, a new generation of buildings began toappear : the modern high-rise building. Lighterconstruction systems and many new materialswere used, especially for interiors. Windows werepermanently sealed so that central air condition-ing would operate efficiently. Walls and floorswere left with openings for air conditioning ductsand utility cables. Each of these features com-promised the fire safety of these buildings.

The built environment was created to servethe needs of people. When a portion of that en-vironment goes up in smoke, those needs are notbeing served. How the hazards in the built en-vironment can be reduced is the subject to whichwe now turn.

Major turn-of-the-century fires, such as Baltimore’s in 1904, aroused concern about fire safety in buildings.

AMERICA BURNING 59

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

9THE HAZARDS

CREATED THROUGH MATERIALSThe dazzling terminal buildings at New York’sJohn F. Kennedy Airport are virtually a museumof contemporary architecture. But one of thosebuildings has demonstrated that man’s monu-ments to his technological genius can turn on himwith a vengeance, at the mere touch of a flame.

The new west wing of the British Overseas Air-ways Corporation building at Kennedy Interna-tional had not yet been opened to the public when,on August 26, 1970, it caught fire-probably atthe hands of an arsonist. Swiftly, flames movedfrom one seat to the next along the 330-foot lengthof the wing. Gases from the incomplete combus-tion of the seats gathered in clouds along the ceil-ing. When flames approached the clouds, thegases ignited explosively, spreading the fire andigniting other groups of seats. The explosionsknocked out the terminal’s huge glass windows.As the ceiling melted, combustible liquid drippedtoward the floor, further spreading the fire. In theend, all 600 seats in the wing were consumed.Damages totaled $2 million. The seats, whichplayed the predominant role in spreading the fire,were like those in many airline terminals: layersof plastic and rubber foam covered by plasticupholstery material.

No lives were lost in the BOAC terminal fire.

But 3 months later, a synthetic material was im-plicated in a fire that killed 145 teenagers. It hap-pened in a door-locked dance hall in St. Laurent-du-Pont, France, that had been lavishly sprayedwith a plastic foam to give the appearance of acave. The fire raged furiously within seconds afterit began, leaping “like a red panther in a smallcage, ” in the words of one survivor,

By no means do synthetics stand alone as haz-ardous materials. A frame house can be a tinder-box. Restaurants decorated with natural ma-terials, basements full of old newspapers andwarehouses storing lumber or paper products pro-vide the fuel for major fires. Inadequately pro-tected structural elements of steel or concrete stillcollapse if a fire is intense enough. Burning silkand wool release deadly quantities of carbonmonoxide and cyanide gas-and these and manyother natural materials ignite at lower tempera-tures than many synthetics do. Plastics manufac-turers contend that synthetics based on carbon,hydrogen, and oxygen exclusively are generallyno more toxic, when burned, than natural ma-terials. On the other hand, other synthetics con-ta in ing su l fur and the ha logens a re no t soinnocuous

Although plastics production has doubled in the

AMERICA BURNING 61

past 7 years, it is only about one-tenth that ofwood, paper, and associated products. The con-tribution of plastics to the fuel load in buildings,especially older buildings where fires occur morefrequently, is therefore certainly well under 10percent. But their use is increasing. Wool rugs aregiving way to synthetic fibers, wooden desk topsto plastics made to look like wood, glass lightingdiffusers to clear plastic panels. There is hardly ause to which “classical” materials have been putthat has not been challenged by synthetics.Clearly, the advantages which plastics offer toconsumers and manufacturers are many, and plas-tics will fill an increasingly large proportion of thebuilt environment.

What makes plastics relevant to our discussionof materials is not only that many of them haveintroduced hazards previously uncommon, butthat they are sold and used without adequate

attention to the special fire hazards they present.The major investigation of the ‘fire problem ofsome plastics by the Federal Trade Commissionhas highlighted a form of misleading representa-tion of the combustion behavior of certain plastics.

How to Die in a Fire

Most people, when they think of fire as a killer,think of flames. Those who have set fire safetystandards for materials have emphasized flameresistance. Yet, in a list of the five ways in whichfire can kill, when arranged in declining impor-tance, flames rank last.¹

Asphyxiation. Fire consumes oxygen from thesurrounding atmosphere, thus reducing its con-centration. If the oxygen concentration falls below

1 This ranking and much of the following discussion isfrom Irving N. Einhorn, director of the Flammability Re-search Center, University of Utah.

In the modern environment of synthetic materials, smoke and toxic gases have become increasingly important hazards.

62 THE HAZARDS CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS

17 percent, thinking may be an effort and coordi-nation difficult. Below 16 percent, attempts toescape the fire may be ineffective or irrational,wasting vital seconds, With further drops, a per-son loses his muscular coordination for skilledmovements, and muscular effort leads rapidly tofatigue. His breathing ceases when the oxygencontent falls below 6 percent. At normal tempera-tures, he would be dead in 6 to 8 minutes.

Attack by superheated air or gases. With tem-peratures above 300° F., loss of consciousness ordeath can occur within several minutes. In addi-tion, hot smoke with a high moisture content is aspecial danger since it destroys tissues deep in thelungs by burning.

Smoke. Inhalation of smoke-or, more cor-rectly, of the products of incomplete combus-tion-kills people who suffer no skin burns at all.In addition to carrying toxic products, such ascarbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, thicksmoke may be laden with organic irritants, suchas acetic acid and formaldehyde. In the earlystages of a fire, the irritants, which attack the mu-cous membranes of the respiratory tract, are oftenthe more important danger. Smoke often blocksthe visibility of exits.

Toxic products. Many toxic components ofsmoke are responsible for the damage done-in-cluding oxides of nitrogen, aldehydes, hydrogencyanide, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia, to nameonly a few. There is ample evidence that the haz-ard of two or more toxic gases is greater than thesum of the hazards of each. Moreover, low oxygenand high temperatures increase the toxic effects.In addition to toxic gases that attack the lungs,there are irritants that attack the eyes with blind-ing effect, preventing escape. Some fire gases dullthe senses of the victim or his awareness of injury.

Flames. Since the aforementioned factors candebilitate, confuse, blind, or kill without warning,the person who goes to sleep confident that ad-vancing flames will provide sufficient warning forescape may be taking a fatal gamble.

Until such time as all five of these hazardshave been well-studied and controlled by ma-terials standards, too little will have been done tocontrol the built environment and thus reducethe gamble Americans take in their daily lives.

Ironically, efforts to make materials fire-retardant-that is, with less tendency to ignite or

spread flames-may have increased the l ifehazard, since the incomplete combustion of manymaterials treated to increase fire retardancy re-sults in heavy smoke and toxic gases. The tech-nology of fire-retardance is often unsatisfactoryin other respects: The additives are generallycostly, can reduce the strength and weather re-sistance of the material to which they are applied,and often lose their effectiveness through washingor prolonged exposure to the elements.

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Damage

That concern about flames alone is insufficient ispointed up by the ample evidence that smoke andtoxic gases are powerful forces of destruction.Smoke from restaurant fires renders uncontain-ered food unusable ; fabrics permeated by smokecan be altered beyond use even after cleaning.And a little smoke can go a long way: A depart-ment store recently lost $100,000 of its mer-chandise and 3 days’ business for cleanup-allbecause of smoke that seeped through walls froman adjoining building on fire.

Again, efforts to make materials flame-resistanthave not always been beneficial. The sooty smokegiven off by many of these materials leaves a thick,black coating on whatever it touches. Moreover,the chemical compounds added to reduce com-bustibility often contain halogens (bromine, chlo-rine, and fluorine) which are corrosive and toxic.

Why Be Half Safe?

According to the Society of Plastics Industry, Inc.,manufacturers of plastics spend $40 million an-nually on research to improve the fire safety oftheir products. That organization issued to manu-facturers, in 1964, a fire safety bulletin settingflammability standards for cellular plastics, Fireresistance or fire classification standards for allsorts of construction materials are set by suchorganizations as the American Society for Testingand Materials and the National Fire ProtectionAssociation. Building codes incorporate many ofthese standards. Underwriters’ Laboratories, Fac-tory Mutual Research Corp., and other organiza-tions test materials to see that they comply withsuch standards.

Yet, for all these efforts, the American publicremains inadequately protected from combustionhazards in their midst.

AMERICA BURNING 63

Smoke and toxic gases have been underratedhazards. Recognition of these hazards has comebelatedly, with the result that there is still littleunderstanding, and hence little quantifiableknowledge, of the destructive effects of smokeand toxic gases.

As a result, there are no nationally recognizedtest methods for measuring smoke production(both rate and amount), The American Societyfor Testing and Materials does have a tunnel testwhich measures the density of smoke produced.Development of more sophisticated tests-forexample, ones which would measure toxic andcorrosive products of combustion-is hamperedby the complexity of the smoke problem. A singlematerial can give off many different products ofcombustion under varying conditions of tempera-ture, humidity, pressure, and other factors; bum-ing cellulose, for example, can produce 96different compounds.

Most tests do not simulate complexities of realfires. Nationally recognized test methods for

evaluating the ignition and flame-spread hazardsof conventional materials in conventional appli-cations may not be appropriate for evaluatingthese materials when used in new ways or forevaluating new materials.

For example, the ASTM’s tunnel test forbuilding materials, devised long before the ad-vent of plastics, would register a low rate of flamespread for a particular plastic, whereas, in a realfire environment, that same material will bumwith an explosive intensity. As a result, archi-tects, design engineers, building contractors, andultimately the consuming public may grossly mis-interpret or inappropriately extrapolate those testresults as indicative of fire safety.

Existing large- and small-scale tests suffer froman inability to predict exact consequences of areal fire, particularly those involving foamedplastics. Improvement of test methods is de-pendent, to a large degree, on a better under-standing of the basic processes of ignition andcombustion and the mechanisms of fire retard-ancy and smoke generation and correlating thesewith actual fire experiences, The Commissionrecommends that research in the basic processesof ignition and combustion be strongly increasedto provide a foundation for developing improvedtest methods.

The economic interests of manufacturers, in-stallers, vendors, and others often run counter tostringent fire safety requirements. For example,in many West Coast communities, because of in-dustry pressures and public preferences, buildingcodes do not outlaw untreated wood shingle roofs,despite their potential for spreading fire.

Some important hazards are not covered bybuilding codes. The fire safety requirements ofbuilding codes apply mostly to construction mate-rials and interior materials used on walls and ceil-ings. Comparatively little attention has been paidto floors and floor coverings, since in the past theircontribution to fire spread was minimal. The ad-vent of synthetic rugs and tiles has made greaterattention to floors imperative.

Building codes do not cover interior furnish-ings. While most political jurisdictions that havebuilding codes also have fire prevention codes,designed to ensure fire safety after a building isconstructed and occupied, the fire preventioncodes, too, have little to say about interior furnish-ings. Moreover, seldom do fire prevention codesapply to private dwellings. Interior furnishingsare not regulated partly because they are felt tobe the province of the owner or tenant and partlybecause until recently there was no motivation todevelop tests on which to base code provisions.They would, indeed, be difficult to regulate, sincethey are subject to continuing change.

While furnishings are likely to remain outsideof code provisions, the fact that they contributesignificantly to combustion hazards means thatbuilding codes only partly satisfy the demands offire safety. The present practice can be comparedto installing a burglar alarm at the front door andleaving the back door wide open. Only to a lim-ited extent is this mitigated by Federal flam-mability standards for fabrics.

Consumers use materials with inadequateknowledge of their combustion hazards. Exceptfor flammable liquids and the materials that areused in appliances and wiring, few of the mate-rials that go into the home carry labels vouch-safing their fire resistance or warning of theirhazards. The unlabeled hazards are found indraperies, rugs, storage cabinets, upholsteredchairs, and other furniture. At present, the house-wife working at the kitchen range has no way ofknowing that her shiny new kitchen cabinets over-.

64 THE HAZARDS CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS

Although considered “safe” by standard tests, this foamed plastic wallboard burns furiously in a “corner” test.

AMERICA BURNING 65

The plastic drawer fronts lack the fireresistance of the wood they simulate, andsome synthetic garments burn furiously.

head are an invitation to a disastrous fire if theirsurface is a hot-dip polystyrene coating. A suddenflare-up from burning grease in a skillet mightreadily ignite the finish on the cabinets, and in notime at all fire could spread explosively through-out the kitchen.

Clearly, homeowners and building tenants needto know the relative hazards of furnishings as wellas other materials so that they can minimize therisks, Fire inspectors, whether enforcing a fire pre-vention code or educating homeowners and ten-ants, need to know the hazards to carry out theirtasks effectively,

New Efforts by Government and Industry

Federal initiative is needed to help close the gapsleft by the voluntary action of industry and theloopholes in material standards and buildingcodes.

In 1972 Congress created the Consumer Prod-uct Safety Commission, authorizing it to “con-duct research, studies, and investigations on thesafety of consumer products and on improving thesafety of such products.” The Commission canset standards of composition and design which

66 THE HAZARDS CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS

consumer products must meet; it can requirelabeling of hazards or instructions for safe use;it can ban products that present “an unreason-able risk of injury.”

The materials that go into the built environ-ment come under the purview of the ConsumerProduct Safety Commission. This Commissionrecommends that the new Consumer ProductSafety Commission give a high priority to thecombustion hazards of materials in their end use.Specific needs are refined understanding of thedestructive effects of smoke and toxic gases, de-velopment of standards to minimize those effects,development of labeling requirements for mate-rials, and outright ban of materials in uses thatpresent unreasonable risks.

The development of a labeling system identify-ing combustion hazards is especially important.The purpose of such a system is not to regulatethe lives of Americans, as an overly rigorous setof standards would do, but to enable consumersto evaluate the combustion hazards of the ma-terials and products they bring into their homes.Further, in public buildings, nursing homes, andother occupancies subject to regulation, the label-ing system would enable inspectors to verify ad-herence to fire load requirements. Though con-siderable research and testing would be needed,the eventual goal of the labeling program shouldbe to identify fuel contribution, smoke produc-tion, and the production of toxic and corrosivegases, as well as such characteristics as ignitiontemperature and flame spread.

We feel we should be candid in expressing ourconcern that, because the Consumer ProductSafety Commission is still in its formative stages,and because other hazards (many of them betterpublicized than combustion hazards) will becompeting for attention, the problem of fire safetymay become a delayed priority. The ConsumerProduct Safety Commission could, on the otherhand, give early and deserved attention to theproblem of fire safety by tapping the researchcapabilities of the National Bureau of Standards, universities, the national standards and testingorganizations, and private industry, through con-tracts and cooperative arrangements.

Indeed, we do not see the Consumer ProductSafety Commission supplanting the efforts in theprivate sector, but complementing them, For one

thing, the program we have recommended is ex-tensive and long-range. Protection of the publiccannot await completion of such a program;other steps must be taken. Material producersowe to various publics----building designers, codeofficials, fire service personnel, and consumersan expanded and more candid effort to explainthe fire charactertistics of the materials they sell.

Further, the emergence of labeling require-ments for materials will not eliminate the need fortechnical reports-that is, papers describing testdata in detail. There will continue to be a bodyof technically oriented users who need detailedanalyses.

Technically oriented users will, for example,have to have knowledge of fuel loads beyond thatprovided by the labeling system. In this con-nection, the Commission recommends that thepresent fuel load study sponsored by the Gcn-era1 Services Administration and conducted bythe National Bureau of Standards be expandedto update the technical study of occupancy fireloads. The information in the National Bureauof Standards’ “Building Materials and Structures# 149,” a report on various fire loads found in dif-ferent occupancies, published in 1957, is nowlargely out of date.

Flammable Fabrics

In 1971, the Department of Health, Education,and Welfare reported that, in recent years, morethan 3,000 Americans die annually after theirclothing catches on fire, and more than 150,000are injured from this cause. One out of fourwhose clothing catches fire is a child under 10.Those 65 and over account for 15 percent of theclothing fires, even though they are less than 10percent of the Nation’s population. The veryyoung and the old are also the persons least ableto tolerate burns.

When clothing catches fire, the extent anddepth of burns arc more severe than skin burnson uncovered areas; from the standpoint of firesafety, the human species would be better offnaked. A recent study by the National Burn In-formation Exchange showed that clothing burnvictims were four times more likely to die thanburn victims spared clothing fire. Their burnscovered nearly twice as much body surface.

The power to set flammability standards for

AMERICA BURNING 67

fabrics now resides with the Consumer ProductSafety Commission. During the 5 years that theflammable fabrics program was shared by theDepartment of Commerce, the Federal TradeCommission, and the Department of Health,Education, and Welfare, only a few standardswere promulgated : those for young children’ssleepwear (up to size 6X), rugs, small carpets,and mattresses.

These standards do nothing to protect theelderly smoker, the housewife whose sleeve passesover the kitchen burner, or the group of 8-year-olds playing with fire in a vacant lot. Notablythey bypass most children between the ages offive and nine, who account for 13 percent ofclothing fire accidents.

The Commission recommends that flammabil-ity standards for fabrics be given high priorityby the Consumer Product Safety Commission.Specific needs are research to improve fire retard-ant processes, extension of flammability standardsto further categories of fabric use, development oflabeling requirements for other categories, andeducational efforts to make consumers aware offire hazards from clothing and other fabrics. TheCommission does not favor unbridled extensionof flammability standards to all categories offabrics. Only grossly hazardous fabrics and fabricsimplicated in a very large number of fire acci-dents should be banned from the marketplace.A preferable direction of emphasis is towardlabeling requirements as to combustion hazards.This would honor the cherished principle of freechoice, while at the same time informing consum-ers of potential risks and reminding them of theimportance of fire. If reinforced by consumereducation on fire safety, labeling requirementswould have the effect of spurring manufacturersto improve the flame-resistance of fabrics.

Fireworks

One material hazard that has declined over theyears, but not to the point of negligible concern,is fireworks. In recent years, fireworks haveclaimed an average of about 600 reported injuriesand 10 deaths annually. Sixty years ago the an-nual toll from fireworks was more than 5,000injuries and 200 deaths.

In 1938, the National Fire Protection Associ-ation published its “Model State Fireworks Law”

(NFPA 494L), which, where enacted, prohibitsthe use of all fireworks except those in supervisedpublic display?. Today, a majority of Americansremain insufficiently protected from fireworksaccidents, since only 18 States have laws as strin-gent as the NFPA's model law and an additionaleight have laws similar to the model but withexceptions. The Commission recommends thatall States adopt the Model State Fireworks Lawof the National Fire Protection Association, thusprohibiting all fireworks except those for publicdisplays.”

The Importance of Research

Adequate regulation of materials in the builtenvironment depends upon adequate testing,and adequa te t e s t ing , in tu rn , depends onadequate understanding of combustion and itshazards. That is not to say, however, that prog-ress cannot be made at all three levels simul-taneously.

Improved testing methods are being pursued.Scientists and engineers at the National Bureauof Standards, for example, are utilizing a smokechambler which measures, in addition to thedensity and rate of smoke produced by a sample,the concentration of specific gases emitted. Ex-perts there and elsewhere arc improving devicesfor measuring heat release, ignitability, flamespread, and fire endurance. Other scientists areworking on model testing techniques to simulatethe conditions of full-scale fires,

The technology for more sophisticated testingand the technology for basic research on fire over-lap, and the two activities go hand-in-hand. It isappropriate that the National Bureau of Stand-ards continue to provide leadership in both theseareas. The Consumer Product Safety Commis-sion should champion the strengthening of NBSefforts in these areas. At the same time, ongoingefforts of university scientists, manufacturers, andindustrial testing laboratories should be encour-aged and expanded.

³ The National Society for the Prevention of Blindness.Inc., lists the following groups as supporting the limitationof all fireworks to licensed public displays only: theAmerican Academy of Pediatrics, the American PublicHealth Association, the California Fire Chiefs Association,the Fire Marshals Association of North America, the In-ternational Association of Fire Chiefs. the National FireProtection Association, the National Safety Council theNational Society for the Prevention of Blindness, OptimistInternational.

68 THE HAZARDS CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS

One basic goal of research should be to improveunderstanding of the dynamics of fire-not offlames alone, but of smoke, heat, toxic gases, andoxygen depletion, which together cause moredeaths than flames do. The Commission recom-mends that the Department of Commerce befunded to provide grants for studies of com-bustion dynamics and the means of its control.

Medical research is also pertinent. In Chapter 2we recommended that the National Institutes ofHealth undertake a major program of researchconcerning smoke inhalation injuries. One out-growth of that research should be new knowledgeconcerning human tolerances of various productsof combustion. From this knowledge standardscan be derived setting maximum allowable out-puts of various products of combustion for ma-terials. The Commission recommends that theNational Bureau of Standards and the NationalInstitutes of Health cooperatively devise and im-plement a set of research objectives designed toprovide combustion standards for materials toprotect human life. It would be appropriate forNIH to bring these objectives to the attentionof the community of medical scientists, to in-

corporate appropriate objectives in its own re-search programs, and to transmit to the ConsumerProduct Safety Commission pertinent researchresults.

A Question of Priorities

The hazards of materials in the built environ-ment will never be eliminated completely, andthey cannot be significantly reduced overnight.Tinderbox houses will remain in the environ-ment until economic circumstances favor theirreplacement or until wear and tear dictate theirremoval. In settings where we are forced to livewith hazardous materials, we must turn to en-g ineer ing means-au tomat ic sp r ink le r s , fo rexample, or early-warning detection and alarmsystems-to compensate for the dangers. But forthe future, we as a Nation cannot rely on thesesystems alone to protect us; the materials them-selves must be improved for fire safety. True, abuilding constructed of fire-safe materials andhaving an automatic extinguishing system as welloffers a certain redundancy of protection. But onewithout the other leaves open possibilities ofdisaster.

AMERICA BURNING 69

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

10HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN

In the afternoon of August 5, 1970, fire broke outon the 33rd floor of One New York Plaza in lowerManhattan. The air conditioning system spreadsmoke throughout the building. Smoke and hotgases shot upward through the gaps between floorslabs and exterior walls. An elevator was auto-matically summoned to the 33d floor, the productsof combustion activating the call button. Theelevator jammed there, and two people died.

Other features of high-rise design contributeto the hazards of fire: sealed windows that causeheat to build up, interior materials that give offthick smoke and toxic gases when afire, utilitychannels and other gaps in walls and floors thatspread smoke and gases. Elevators can be deathtraps. Exitways can very quickly become over-crowded. When fire breaks out on upper floors,beyond the reach of ladders, firefighters must lugheavy hoses up the stairways.

From the standpoint of life loss, high-rise build-ings have made a very small contribution untilnow. But they are a matter of special concern.Recent high-rise fires in other countries withheavy life loss suggest that luck may run out forthe United States. On Christmas Day, 1971, 163died in a hotel fire in Seoul, Korea. Two months

later, 16 died and 375 were injured when fireconsumed a high-rise in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Asmore and more Americans choose to live or workin high-rise buildings, their importance as a fireproblem will increase.

But high-rise buildings are not the only moderncreation in which design impairs fire safety. Inmany homes, stairwells help to carry fire and theproducts of combustion upward to sleeping areas.Slim horizontal windows under the eaves of single-story dwellings-a fashionable feature of ranch-style homes-hamper rescue efforts. Two childrendied in a Maine fire because firemen couldn’tget through windows of this type. Tragedies ofthis sort have recurred many times,

Clearly, fire safety lags behind other considera-tions, such as aesthetics and economy, in the de-sign of buildings. There are a number of reasonsfor this.

Fire safety analysis is lagging behind innovationin building design. For example, there is anunderstandable trend toward ever-lighter struc-tural members which reduce the cost without sig-nificantly reducing strength. Building designersintroduce these innovations while two importantquestions go unanswered. First, arc the structural

AMERICA BURNING 71

members adequately protected from fire for theentire life of the building as well as during a firethat may occur tomorrow? Second, are existingtests for fire safety adequate for measuring thefire protection af forded by the par t i cu la rinnovation?

There is l i t t le incentive to invest in f iresafety. Clients of building designers, to the ex-tent that they think of fire safety at all, believefire is a small risk in the future of their building.Or they judge that potential losses are adequatelycovered by their insurance policies. Owners ofprivate homes might build in fire protection iftheir insurance premiums were thereby reduced,but no such incentive exists. While the reduced-premium exists for builders of commercial and in-dustrial building?, the fire safety requirements forreduced rates often are not extensive.

For the designer, the chief goals are to plan abuilding that serves its intended architecturalfunction, as pleasing in appearance as can bedone, and as cheaply as possible. With top prioritybeing placed on these goals safety becomes, formost designers, nothing more than a necessaryevil for compliance with local codes.

Building codes have characteristics which en-courage the outlook that they are nuisances.New requirements are piled on top of old andoutmoded ones, with the effect that the codesbecome increasingly inflexible. Often the require-ments are excessive : For example, in places wherethe contents that will be added would all burn inabout half an hour, requirements for 3 to 4hours of fire resistance in bearing walls are notuncommon. While excessive requirements existfor some characteristics, early warning of occu-pants, smoke movement, and toxic gas productionare virtually ignored.

Tested uses and actual uses of materials canbe two different things. The set of conditionsunder which materials are tested by manufac-turers and private test laboratories may representonly a segment of the uses to which those mate-rials are actually put. When a designer uses amaterial in a way that has not been tested, hehas no way of knowing how or whether the firesafety characteristics are different.

The knowledge on which fire safety standardsare based is deficient. Fire safety standards arebased mostly on judgments gained from actual

72 HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN

fire experience and on a limited range of condi-tions used in testing. They are based, in otherwords, on empirical knowledge rather thanfundamental understanding of the behavior offire. This lack of theoretical and experimental un-derpinnings contrasts sharply with such fields asmechanical or electrical engineering. In the latterfield, for example, the effects of changing thediameter of a wire, or the design of a circuit, orthe amount of current pushed through the systemcan be expressed as mathematical equations andpredicted quite accurately. If such equationscould be written to predict the effects of fire andits combustion products, then changes in a mate-rial or its use would lead to known changesin fire safety characteristics-without expensivetesting.

From Research to Application

In 1969, the Committee on Fire Research of theNational Research Council published its report,A Proposed National Fire Research Program.Thorough in its scope, the report will provide ahelpful guide to fire research priorities in thedecade of the Seventies. Much of the basic re-search on fire behavior recommended by thereport will have a bearing on how buildingsought to be designed to minimize fire hazards.

Four years have passed since the report wasissued. An assessment of what has been accom-plished thus far is imperative. In areas of researchwhere an added push is needed, additional re-search should be encouraged. In areas where re-sults have begun to come in, efforts should bemade, to incorporate the new information into asystematic body of fire analysis and to explore theimplications for codes and building design.

The Commission urges the National Bureauof Standards to assess current progress in fireresearch and define the areas in need of addi-tional investigation. Further, the Bureau shouldrecommend a program for translating researchresults into a systematic body of engineeringprinciples and, ultimately, into guidelines usefulto code writers and building designers. No lessimportant than the needs of designers of largestructures are the needs of designers of single-family houses. The National Bureau of Standardsshould carry out these responsibilities in coopera-tion with other government agencies, nationally

This new Third Avenue building met New York City’s building code, yet three died and 20 were injured in the fire.

recognized testing and research laboratories, andwith the major standards-writing organizations :the National Fire Protection Association, theAmerican National Standards Institute, and theAmerican Society for Testing and Materials.

What Can Be Done Today

The present state of fire protection engineeringdoes not leave today’s building designer in a con-dition of helplessness. Much of what is knownabout fire safety is simply being ignored. Indeed,enough is known about fire safety to permit areliable application of a sophisticated systems ap-proach to fire safety design. In the systems ap-proach, in contrast to the “that’s the way it’s al-ways been done” approach, objectives are set forthe building as a whole, and then the most cost-effective technology is applied to meet those ob-jectives, In such an approach, relat ionshipsamong components are important, and trade-offsare sought. For example, if alarm and sprinklersystems are installed to provide quick and effectiveresponse to a fire, then fireproofing requirementsfor walls and floors may be reduced. Another im-portant aspect of the systems approach is that

backup measures are provided in case part of thesystem fails. But redundancy for the sake of re-dundancy is avoided.

A systems approach was taken in the design ofSan Francisco’s Transamerica Building in 1971.In addition to a full sprinkler system, smoke detec-tion devices, and a central alarm system, thedesigners provided the building with emergencyrefuge areas, two-way voice communications withpublic areas, and an underground communica-tions and command control center. Windowspivot so that burning rooms can be vented. In theevent of a power failure, diesel pumps will main-tain water pressure, and a diesel-run generatorwill light exitways and power the elevators.Should city fire mains be disrupted, there is anemergency water supply. While these provisionsare costly, they are offset by savings they allowed :lower fire resistance requirements for floors andcorridors, the elimination of fire dampers fromthe air conditioning system, and a sprinkler sys-tem that permitted the use of smaller pipes.

The General Services Administration has alsoadopted a systems approach, its first result beingthe Federal Office Building in Seattle. The build-

AMERICA BURNING 73

“NOTHING MYSTERIOUS”

Poor judgment often results in unnecessary fire lower level. In addition, exhibitions in McCor-potential in buildings. In the fire that consumed mick Place often added a heavy fuel load in theMcCormick Place, Chicago’s convention hall, in form of flammable displays, yet the building1967, two gross errors in design contributed to had no sprinkler system.the extensive damage. On the assumption that As a result of its investigation the Nationaltemperatures could not reach a level to threaten Fire Protection Association concluded that “thethe roof structure, the designers left the steeljoists unprotected ; the roof collapsed during the

principles of good fire protection have beenknown for many years and there was nothing

fire. Second, large aluminum space dividers mysterious about the destruction of McCormickwere installed directly over expansion joints in Place. The building was almost entirely unpro-the floor, with the result that molten aluminum tected from a fire hazard so great that oneflowed through the expansion joints into the wonders why it was not obvious all along.”

74 HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN

ing was given a structural integrity three to fourtimes as strong as the most severe situation will

call for it to withstand. Each story was made aself-contained, fire-resistant compartment. Whena fire breaks out-and the GSA estimates thatabout 100 ignitions will occur in the next 50years-one of several alarm systems will notifythe Seattle Fire Department and the emergencycontrol center in the building. Immediately, aprerecorded tape will broadcast instructions topeople on the fire floor. Air flow will be adjustedto prevent smoke and other products of combus-tion from spreading. Elevators will be “captured”and reserved for handling the emergency. As withthe Transamerica Building, the costs of these pro-visions are largely offset by savings in other aspectsof the building’s design.

The systems approach used by the architects ofthe Transamerica Building and the GSA Appliesto one class of buildings. Similar approachescould be devised for other classes of buildings, in-cluding one-family residences. The Commissionrecommends that the National Bureau of Stand-ards, in cooperation with the National FireProtection Asssociation and other appropriateorganizations, support research to develop guide-lines for a systems approach to fire safety in alltypes of buildings.

A different kind of study, though a naturaloutgrowth of a fire safety systems analysis, is whatwe have designated as a fire safety effectivenessstatement. This is an attempt to state, in quanti-fied terms, the potential losses of life and property(both inside and surrounding the structure)should the structure catch fire. The better thedesign and built-in fire protection of the build-ing, the closer these quantities will approach zero.The effectiveness statement should pay particularattention to the consequences of fires starting inareas of the structure where people or highlyflammable materials are concentrated. An addi-tional set of calculations, designed to measure theadequacy of back-up measures, should be basedon assumptions of system failures, such as powerblackouts or non-functioning smoke detectors.While revealing whether adequate safeguardshave been provided, the effectiveness statementhas the added value of stating, through implica-tion, the demands that would be put on local fireservices should a fire occur. Fire safety effective-

ness statements are particularly important forhigh-risk structures, such as shopping centers,public buildings, fuel storage depots, tankers, andchemical plants.

The Federal Government, through the Gen-eral Services Administration, has set a valuableexample for the private sector through its pioneer-ing work in fire safety systems analysis. A govern-mentwide example should also be set in the areaof fire safety effectiveness statements. Accordingly,the Commission recommends that, in all con-struction involving Federal money, awarding ofthose funds be contingent upon the approval ofa fire safety systems analysis and a fire safetyeffectiveness statement. The funding agencywould certify that the analysis and effectivenessstatement have met its fire safety standards.

Product Design

It is not just the large structures of the builtenvironment that need improved design if firelosses are to be reduced. Many products needdesign improvement. Heating and cooking equip-ment, faulty wiring, and electrical appliances aremajor causes of fires. Together with fires causedby smoking and matches, these categories accountfor nearly half the fires that occur (see Table8 - 2 ) .

Over the years, manufacturers and standards-writing organizations have developed ever-im-proving safety standards in the design of consumerproducts. Yet some hazards have not been ade-quately covered. The National Commission onProduct Safety, in its 1970 report, identified colortelevision sets, floor furnaces, hot-water vapor-izers, and unvented gas heaters as specific fire orburn hazards. Under “unfinished business”-possibly hazardous products the Commission didnot study-were listed electric blankets, dryers,hotplates, extension cords, and space heaters.Further studies of fire experience might bringother hazards to light, particularly those that arisefrom wear and tear. Such studies now lie withinthe purview of the Consumer Product SafetyCommission.

The business of making consumer products safefrom fire and burn hazards is, in many cases,recognizably a complicated matter. When kitchenrange controls were at the front of the stove, chil-dren could reach them and cause burner acci-

AMERICA BURNING 75

dents; now that they are at the back, they can behazardous to the clothing and skin of peoplereaching for them over hot burners. No doubttoday’s appliances could be made completely safe,but food wouldn’t get cooked, toast wouldn’t gettoasted, and clothes wouldn’t get ironed. Butadvances are possible. Within the grasp of tech-nology are burners that can only be activated bythe weight of specially designed, snugly fitting

pans. (Here, too, one must settle for imperfection;there is residual heat in the burner once the panis removed.) Further, scientists are working onthe principle of generating heat within the sub-stance to be heated, through induction of frictionbetween molecules.

Technology is also being developed to treatcigarettes and matches to minimize their potentialfor accidentally igniting destructive fires. Fed-eral support may be needed to perfect these de-velopments, and legislation may be needed to banuntreated cigarettes and matches if manufac-turers fail to adopt the improvements voluntarily.

As we pointed out in Chapter 9, the ConsumerProduct Safety Commission is authorized by lawto “conduct research, studies, and investigations

For the Federal Office Building in Seattle,the General Services Administrationhas used a systems approach to fire safety.

76 HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN

on the safety of consumer products and on im-proving the safety of such products.” Since burns

are a major form of injury from consumer prod-ucts, it will be appropriate for that Commissionto devote a significant portion of its energies andresources to fire and burn hazards. This Commis-sion urges the Consumer Product Safety Com-mission to give high priority to matches,cigarettes, heating appliances, and other con-sumer products that are significant sources ofburn injuries, particularly products for whichindustry standards fail to give adequate protec-tion. All of the Commission’s important weaponsmight be brought to bear against these hazards:the setting of standards of performance, design,or materials for consumer products; the require-ment of adequate warning labels and user-instructions; and the banning of products that areunreasonable risks to consumers.

Educating the Designer

Few formal education programs anywhere in theUnited States for architects and engineers havecourse requirements in fire protection engineering.(Only the University of Maryland and the Illi-nois Institute of Technology offer 4-year Bachelorof Science degree programs in fire protection engi-neering.) While some professional societies havecommittees concerned with fire safety, few de-signers take an interest in the committees’ work.For lack of training, many designers are unableto understand highly technical reports in firesafety design.

This absence of training helps to explain theunenthusiastic attention which architects andengineers, when designing buildings, give to firesafety provisions. If the situation were turnedaround--that is, if architects and engineers wereschooled in the principles of fire safety--then un-doubtedly they would participate enthusiasticallyin the search for alternative solutions and bettercodes consistent with the principles of fire safety.

The Commission recommends to schools giv-ing degrees in architecture and engineering thatthey include in their curricula at least one coursein fire safety. Further, we urge the AmericanInstitute of Architects, professional engineeringsocieties, and State registration boards to imple-ment this recommendation. Registration boardscould require a specific number of credit hours

of fire protection engineering to qualify for Statelicensing for appropriate disciplines within archi-tecture and engineering. After a suitable time toallow local initiative on this recommendation,Federal funds for engineering and architecturalschools might be contingent upon those schoolshaving adequate fire protection engineering re-quirements as part of the degree curriculum.

We recognize that, at present, if the emphasisis to be on basic principles, there is not a greatdeal available to be taught to architects and en-gineers in the realm of fire protection engineer-ing. Deciding what can be taught-and whatshould be taught-requires careful study. TheCommission urges the Society of Fire ProtectionEngineers to draft model courses for architectsand engineers in the field of fire protection en-gineering. To this end, the Society should calltogether educators in architecture and the prin-cipal engineering disciplines to discuss what in-formation would be desirable to teach architectsand engineers.

Since it will take several years to develop firesafety courses in architectural and engineeringschools, then several more years before those whohave had this training begin to practice, the im-pact of these curricular additions will not be feltfor some time to come. Practicing building de-signers must also be educated in fire safety. TheCommission recommends that the proposed Na-tional Fire Academy develop short courses toeducate practicing designers in the basics of firesafety design.

There is presently enough information and awide range of technological choices (for example,total communicationssystems, fire retardants, fire-resistant coatings) to permit architects, engineers,and other building designers to plan buildingsthat are safeguarded from fire. What is needed,in many cases, are incentives.

Positive incentives are likely to come aboutthrough example. We are encouraged that theFederal Office Building in Seattle is serving as abeacon to the community. Now owners of Seattleoffice buildings still on the drawing boards areapplying the same kind of systems approach toprovide the best building possible as a way ofinsuring full rental. They feel they must be ableto show potential renters that their building is,among other things, fire-safe.

AMERICA BURNING 77

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

11CODES AND STANDARDS

For centuries, governments have exercised theright to regulate how buildings are built for thesake of the public’s protection. In the time ofJulius Caesar, Roman laws regulated the heightof buildings and the distances between them. Dur-ing Queen Anne’s reign, the English found itnecessary to have a code to require non-combusti-ble roofs. By the time of America’s settlement, thelegal concept of codes was well-established. In1796, for example, the city of New Orleans, thena Spanish province, passed an ordinance againstthe use of wood roofs.

The public interest justifies these intrusions onindividual liberty, but what constitutes the publicinterest has been a subject of debate and change.Is continuity of business operations in the publicinterest? States maintain that it is, thus justifyingstrict code requirements in private industrialplants.

Fire safety is only one aspect of the public in-terest-and, hence, only one of many mattersgoverned by codes-but in the wake of majorconflagrations that struck a number of Americancities at the turn of the century, it became a con-cern of major importance. In 1905, the NationalBoard of Fire Underwriters (now the AmericanInsurance Association) developed and publishedthe National Building Code, the first “model”

building code. It had no legal status of its own,but was intended to provide guidance to State andlocal jurisdictions for the enactment of legal codes.Because its concern was principally central cityareas, the code emphasized converting downtownareas from combustible construction, providingadequate separation between buildings, and pro-viding area limits and fire-resistive separationswithin buildings.

Other model codes have been developed overthe years: that of the Pacific Building OfficialsConference (now the International Conference ofBuilding Officials) in 1927, that of the SouthernBuilding Code Congress in 1945, and that of theBuilding Officials Conference of America (nowthe Building Officials and Code AdministratorsInternational, Inc.) in 1950. All of these codesare subject to periodic updating.

None of the model codes is sufficient unto itself.All make references to extensive lists of standardsdeveloped by other organizations. These stand-ards usually specify the performance a material orstructural member must achieve under certainconditions. Standards are written by such organi-zations as the American National Standards In-stitute, the American Society for Testing andMaterials, and the National Fire ProtectionAssociation.

AMERICA BURNING 79

In addition to the model building codes, thereexists the Life Safety Code, published by the Na-tional Fire Protection Association. Its intent is tostrengthen provisions for protecting the occupantsof buildings, rather than saving the building itself.It covers construction, protection, and occupant)features relative to life safety.

Model codes are not the only source of con-struction regulations. The Federal Governmentexerts leverage on the construction industrythrough such documents as the Minimum Prop-erty Standards of the Department of Housing andUrban Development, the safety standards of theOccupational Safety and Health Administration,and the minimum requirements of the Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare for grantprograms or social security assistance.

Local Code Provisions

The situation of the model codes is complicated,but not nearly as complicated as matters at thelocal level of code adoption. In addition to thebuilding code, for which the model codes are in-tended to provide guidelines, State and localjurisdictions may have more than half a dozenother codes. A building code, of course, appliesprincipally to new construction and alterations,though it is sometimes made retroactive and ap-plied to existing buildings if past deficiencies arediscovered to be critical. Once a building is con-structed, a fire prevention code may govern themaintenance of the building and the introductionof materials into the building for the sake of firesafety,

Frequently there are other codes as well :l The housing code, which is concerned with

livability and sets standards for sanitation andhealth facilities and building maintenance;

l The electrical code, which sets requirementsfor the materials and equipment used in theelectrical system;

l The plumbing code, which provides for the de-livery of potable water and the safe disposal offlushed wastes;

l The mechanical code, which applies to theheating, ventilating, and air conditioningsystems;

l The elevator code, which governs the materials,equipment, and installation of elevators andtheir use.

In a city there may be as many kinds of in-spectors as there are codes, of which only the fireprevention inspectors are likely to be members ofthe fire department.

The two mos t impor tan t codes f rom thestandpoint of fire safety arc the Building code andthe fire prevention code. Typically, two-thirds tothree-fourths of the provisions of a building codeapply to fire safety, as do all the provisions of afire prevention code.

How these codes are adopted varies from onejurisdiction to another, but generally there arepublic hearings preceding action by the city coun-cil or the State legislature. Material manufac-turers, suppliers, contractors, labor unions, tradeassociations, and civic groups are given the chanceto support the proposed code or recommendchanges. Considering that these groups often dif-fer in their degree of expertise, that they makeconflicting claims, and that some do not havefire safety uppermost in their minds, it is hardlysurprising that codes are products of compromiseamid competing aims and viewpoints. Nor is itsurprising that there are wide differences amongthe 14,000 local building codes that exist in thiscountry. As the National Commission on UrbanProblems remarked in its 1968 report, “Buildingcode jurisdictions are thousands of little king-doms, each having its own way; what goes in onetown won’t go in another-and for no goodreason.”

Evidence of the diversity in local codes wasdiscovered during that Commission’s survey ofthe Nation’s 52 largest cities. Only 14 were usingone of the model codes, 20 had regulations basedon the model codes but with significant changes,13 had adopted codes of their own, and one fol-lowed a State-recommended code. (Four citiesdid not reply to the survey. ) Differences amongthese local codes are not inconsequential; oftenthe process of political compromise leads to seri-ous compromise in fire safety. Here and there inthis report we cite examples of tragic fires inbu i ld ings tha t met a l l loca l bu i ld ing coderequirements.

Feeding the diversity among local codes are thedifferences among the national model codes. Themodel codes differ markedly in such matters aspermissible heights and areas, interior finish re-quirements, and specifications of safe travel dis-

80 CODES AND STANDARDS

tances for occupants. At the local level, then, aspokesman for a particular point of view, whetheron the side of leniency or stringency, can appealto the authority of the one model building codewhich among the four best matches his position.If his subject is fire prevention codes, he has threemodel codes to pick from.

Attempts to develop some uniformity amongthe model codes have had limited success. TheModel Code Standardization Council, which in-cludes representatives from the Nation’s buildingstandards-writing organizations, has been workingon uniform definitions of building constructionterms and a common format for the model codes.The National Conference of States on BuildingCodes and Standards is working toward more uni-formity in building codes on a state-wide basis.The Conference of American Building Officials isseeking to fill gaps in existing standards and todevise a system to promote and approve researchtoward better standards,

The most promising start toward greater uni-formity came in 1971, when the four model codegroups jointly published a “One- and Two-Family Dwelling Code.” Having eliminated manyof the past differences among model codes, thejoint code has thus diminished the justification forwide differences in codes between one jurisdictionand another for single- and two-family resi-dences. However, it has practically no fire safetyprovisions.

More disturbing than the wide differencesamong local codes is the fact that many jurisdic-tions have no codes whatsoever. When the Na-tional Commission on Urban Problems surveyedlocal governments in the United States ( 18,000units surveyed), it found that only 46 percenthad a building code. On the other hand, a morerecent survey of 2,000 cities with over 10,000population indicates that 97 percent of thesecities have building codes. l It is the sparselysettled areas, it can be surmised, which are chieflywithout building codes, Though there are nostatistics on how many jurisdictions have a fireprevention code, it appears there are a significantnumber of communities which do not have onein force. The Commission recommends that alllocal governmental units in the United States

1 Milton Applefield, “Fire District Use in North CentralRegion Cities,” Fire journal, January 1973, p. 28.

have in force an adequate building code and fireprevention code or adopt whichever they lack.

Local Implementation of Codes

A law is effective only to the extent that it isenforced, and so it is with a fire prevention orbuilding code.

Many serious building fires have been the re-sult, not of code deficiencies, but of lax enforce-ment (sometimes because of corruption). A fire-resistant floor, for example, is an insufficient bar-rier to smoke and fire if the architect allows gapsin the floor or a workman punches a big hole inthe floor to allow a pipe to pass through. Vigi-lance is needed in the review of plans and in in-spection during construction. Once constructionis finished, compromises in fire safety may behidden from view.

The training of inspectors is, in many places,woefully inadequate. In one major city, the onlytraining for fire prevention inspectors consists ofsending them out for a few days with a senior in-spector. Architects and engineers complain aboutinflexibility in the codes, but one reason codestend toward rigidity and detailed specificationsis that local building officials and inspectors arenot equipped, because of their inadequate train-ing, to evaluate alternative solutions and trade-offs.

A fire-resistant ceiling is not effectiveif an architect or a workman allowswide holes for a pipe to pass through,

AMERICA BURNING 81

The effectiveness of codes is also compromisedby lack of coordination among inspection pro-grams. The building department generally hasresponsibility for enforcing building codes, the firedepartment for enforcing fire prevention codes.Because fire prevention bureaus are responsiblefor fire safety throughout the life of a building,they ought to be consulted by building depart-ments during the design and construction phases.In many local jurisdictions, however, buildingdepartments act unilaterally, implementing thebuilding code during these crucial stages withoutrequesting the suggestions and advice of the fireprevention bureau. Since the two codes influenceeach other but require expertise specific to theenforcement of each, coordination of efforts be-tween the two departments is needed to provideoptimum fire protection. The Commission rec-ommends that local governments provide thecompetent personnel, training programs for in-

spectors, and coordination among the variousdepartments involved to enforce effectively thelocal building and fire prevention codes. Repre-sentatives from the fire department should par-ticipate in reviewing the fire safety aspects ofplans for new building construction and altera-tions to old buildings.

Strengthening the Model Codes

Since the model codes exert a powerful influenceon local codes, the quality of the model codes isa nationwide concern of considerable importance.

Historically, major changes in the model codeshave been made when a particular fire problemachieves a certain magnitude (as is happening inresponse to high-rise fires) or when a dramaticfire or two focuses public attention on a problem(as happened in the wake of the Coconut Grovenightclub fire in Boston in 1942). The problemof smoke generation, which has been aggravated

Adequate fire safety in buildings depends upon cooperation between inspectors in the building and fire departments.

82 CODES AND STANDARDS

in recent years by the increased use of syntheticmaterials, has yet to receive adequate attention.Slowness of change except during crisis is typicalof social institutions, but the consequences of thatcharacteristic are, in this instance, vital to publicsafety.

One consequence of this mode of change is thatnew requirements tend to be piled upon old in-stead of replacing them. The result can be need-less redundancy and added expense. In somemodel codes, for example, the addition of an auto-matic sprinkler system has not been accompaniedby trade-off provisions on other fire safety features,such as height and area limitations, maximumtravel distances, or the degree of fire-resistiveconstruction.

The model codes have also been slow to respondto the rapid changes in materials and construc-tion technology. Here the fault does not lie ghieflywith the code-writing organizations, since theirrequirements in these areas usually make refer-ences to the standards set by other organizations.As we pointed out in Chapter 9, changes in mate-rials and construction technology have threatenedto outrun the standards-setting organizations andtesting laboratories striving to keep up with thechanges. As we have also pointed out, a firmergrounding of standards in a scientific understand-ing of fire and its effects would streamline theprocess of approving for use new materials andtechnology. Progress in this direction would alsoimprove the codes. As it is now, both specificationrequirements (such as 1/2-inch thickness forgypsum sheathing) and performance standards(such as 3 hours of fire-resistiveness in certainbearing walls) arc the product of judgmentsbased on past experience or speculation, ratherthan firm knowledge of fire behavior.’

The mechanisms for change to the model codesare similar in the International Conference ofBuilding Officials, the Building Officials andCode Administrators International, and theSouthern Building Code Congress. When a

2 The use of more scientifically based information wouldfunction both to increase the validity of code requirementsand to perpetuate a more uniform scientific base for allcodes.

change is proposed, a code change committeeholds hearings to consider opposing views, thenstudies the matter further and issues its recom-mendation While the recommendation is votedon by the organization’s membership, the com-mittee’s recommendation is usually adopted.

Sitting on these committees are local buildingofficials, who often lack expertise in fire protection,and who in some instances are understandablyreluctant to impose stringent requirements on in-dustries which would directly affect local pro-grams. The committee process is, moreover, aslow one.

While the Commission has no suggestions forimproving the process whereby the model codesare amended, we do have two specific recommen-dations for strengthening the model codes. Weare firm in our conviction that many lives couldbe saved, and many injuries averted, if homeswere equipped with early-warning fire detectorsand alarms. These can be effective sentinels, espe-cially at night when so many tragic fires occur.No less important are early-warning detectorscoupled with automatic extinguishing systems inbuildings where many people congregate. Auto-matic sprinklers can pay for themselves in dam-ages prevented, and the model codes should per-mit other savings by relaxing requirements forother fire safety features when automatic sprin-klers are installed. The Commission recommendsthat, as the model code of the International Con-ference of Building Officials has already done,all model codes specify at least a single-stationearly-warning detector oriented to protect sleep-ing areas in every dwelling unit. Further, themodel codes should specify automatic fire ex-tinguishing systems and early-yarning detectorsfor high-rise buildings and for low-rise buildingsin which many people congregate. (Examples ofthis last category include buildings of public as-sembly, such as theaters and exhibition halls,restaurants, and enclosed shopping center malls.)These recommendations apply as well to Stateand local jurisdictions, whether or not they followone of the model building codes.

Of all the actions that can be taken to providefire safety for Americans in their built environ-ment, these, we believe, are the most important.

AMERICA BURNING 83

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

12TRANSPORTATION

FIRE HAZARDSEver since man learned there was a better waythan a pair of feet to get from here to there, he hasdeveloped a propensity for not getting there atall. As he has honed his technology of transport,he has also dropped from the sky like a leadweight, sunk to the bottom of the sea, tumbledfrom the sides of mountains, and met in disastrouscollision his fellow man traveling in the oppositedirection. In the process he has managed to de-stroy a considerable amount of the wealth thathe felt it necessary to carry from here to there. Hehas also destroyed human lives.

Fire is not the inevitable consequence of atransportation accident, but in an age of combus-tion fuels it is a frequent accompaniment. In 1971,about 4,260 Americans, or about one-third ofall who died in fires, lost their lives in burningplanes, trains, ships, or motor vehicles. The ma-jority of these were lost on the highways. TheNational Fire Protection Association estimatesthat, in that year, 521,800 transportation firescaused property losses exceeding $332 million (see

Table 12-1 ) . That was 20,950 more fires, and $63million more in losses, than the year before.

Several factors have contributed to the growthof transportation fires. First, a citizenry growingin affluence and mobility is using transportationas never before. During the 1960’s, passengermiles on U.S. airlines more than tripled, from 34billion passenger miles in 1960 to 123 billion in1970. Motor vehicle registrations went from 74million in 1960 to 108 million in 1970, an increaseof 46 percent. A second factor, related to the first,is the Nation’s rapidly increasing consumption ofgoods, which requires more transport vehicles totravel more frequently to meet the demands.Third, hazardous materials which once traveledsolely on one mode of transportation are nowoften exposed during transit to two or more (forexample, “piggyback” truck-rail arrangements,and containerized shipping), increasing theamount of handling and straining the capacities ofthe containers. Fourth, new materials and newforms of old materials (such as liquefied petroleum

AMERICA BURNING 85495-792 O - 73 - 7

Table 12-1. Estimated 1971 Transportation Fire Losses*

Category

Life loss Property loss Fires

Number Percent Dollars- Percent Number Percentof total mill ion of total of total

Aerospace vehicles and aircraft 125 1.1 $192.0 7.0Motor vehicles-farm/constructionMotor vehicles-pleasure/transportation 3,950 33.3

{16.12 0.696.54 3.5

Ships, railroads, etc l 8 5 1.5 27.60 1.0

Transportation (total) 4,260 35.9 $332.26 12.1

200 0.019,200 0.7

482,400 17.720,000 0.7

521,800 19.1

*National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control staff estimate for 1971.

gas) are being introduced at a rate that chal-lenges regulatory measures and firefighting tech-niques to keep up.

Transport of Hazardous Materials

About 10,000 new chemical products are de-veloped every year. Most never reach the com-mercial market; some do. And of those that do,there are some that can present severe fire threatsas they are moved from place to place.

Real facts about the frequency and causes oftransport fires involving hazardous cargoes arehard to come by. Within the Department ofTransportation, such agencies as the FederalAviation Administration, the Federal RailroadAdministration, and the Federal Highway Ad-ministration investigate accidents in their respec-tive areas of concern. In a study of reportingsystems issued 4 years ago, the National Trans-portation Safety Board, another arm of the De-partment of Transportation, complained of the“parochialism” of accident reports, and the factthat they “have not contained information ap-propriate in character, depth, and detail to havemuch value in preventing hazardous accidents inother modes.”

Some of this is changing. The Office of Haz-ardous Materials, still another Department ofTransportation entity, has developed a systemfor receiving, storing, and retrieving informationon hazardous materials accidents. The NationalTransportation Safety Board has the duty to in-vestigate causes of transportation accidents (ex-cluding aircraft and marine accidents), yet in1971 the Safety Board reviewed and issued only‘22 reports of separate rail, highway, and pipelineincidents. The Commission recommends that the

86 TRANSPORTATION FIRE HAZARDS

National Transportation Safety Board expandits efforts in issuance of reports on transportationaccidents so that the information can be used toimprove transportation fire safety.

Despite the absence of complete statistics, somegeneralizations are possible:l There are more fires and explosions involving

tank vehicles during loading and unloadingthan during actual transit.

l Routine transportation presents little hazard;it is the interruption to smooth transit thatcauses accidents.

l Regulations concerning the transportation ofhazardous materials lag behind current needs;as one commentator has put it, “the regulatorysystem is a part of the problem and not part ofthe solution.” 1

In addition, the hazards that are covered canbe bewilderingly complex. Whether it is the Statepolice, another enforcement authority, or the firedepartment that responds to an emergency, rudi-mentary knowledge is not sufficient. Complica-tions are often present:

Physical properties. A liquefied gas, for ex-ample, may have widely different fire and ex-plosion hazards from those that exist when thefuel is shipped in a vaporized form.Mixture of hazards. A material may well betoxic, flammable, and reactive all at the sametime, yet marked for only one of the hazards.Similar names, divergent hazards. One ma-terial with a name quite similar to another maypresent quite different hazards.

1 W. M. Haessler, “The Four Problems of Transporta-tion of Goods,” Fire Journal, November 1971, p. 29.

Firefighters and the public alike would alsobe better served if trucks, tank cars, and othervessels for transporting hazardous materials car-ried clearly visible, readily understandable mark-ings indicating the hazards therein. The two mostuniversally recognized means of identification ofhazardous materials are the National Fire Pro-tection Association’s “704M System” and theDepartment of Transportation’s “Hazard Infor-mation System” (HI). While the systems are notdissimilar in the important respects, the Nationwould be better served if a single system, incorpo-rating the best aspects of each, were adopted uni-versally. The Commission recommends that theDepartment of Transportation work with inter-ested parties to develop a marking system, to beadopted nationwide, for the purpose of identify-ing transportation hazards. In carrying out thisrecommendation, the Department of Transporta-tion should seek the cooperation and agreementof the Department of Labor, which, under theOccupational Safety and Health Act, is chargedwith developing a labeling system for hazardousmaterials for protection of employees. Since thosewho must utilize the information gained fromthese markings often must do so under poor light-ing and hazardous conditions, representatives ofthe fire services should also be consulted.

The complexity of hazards complicates fire-fighting. While spillage of a highly flammableliquid into a stream may actually reduce hazards,spillage of a toxic liquid into a stream creates anew and major problem. Chemical foams effec-tively extinguish some tank fires, but are rendereduseless if certain solvents are present. For theirown safety, firefighters need to know the particularhazards and proper tactics to use with each ma-terial, so that they can cope with what is likelyto happen next.

In a word, then, firefighters must be well-informed about the hazards they are asked to dealwith. While the National Fire Protection Associa-tion, State firefighter schools, and some industryrepresentatives have attempted to educate fire de-partments on chemical hazards and proper tacticsto use on transportation fires, the results havebeen very uneven. Training is likely to be superiorin urban areas. But trucks and trains cross vastpatches of rural America (at greater speed thanin urban areas), where training is likely to be

minimal. The Commission recommends that theproposed National Fire Academy disseminate toevery fire jurisdiction appropriate educationalmaterials on the problems of transporting haz-ardous materials.

Even with adequate labeling and considerabletraining, fire departments may face new or un-usual hazards in transportation accidents forwhich their knowledge of appropriate handling is,at best, uncertain. In such instances, they shouldbe able to telephone for advice from a sourceknowledgeable about the particular hazard.

The Chemical Transportation EmergencyCenter (Chem-Tree) of the ManufacturingChemists Association is a long step forward tomeeting this need. By tapping its own resourcesand those of others (such as DOT’s Office ofHazardous Materials and the EnvironmentalProtection Agency), it is able to provide instantinformation for handling emergencies involvinghazardous substances. The full potential of thissystem will not be realized until an adequatelabeling system tells fire departments exactlywhat is inside the containers involved in acci-dents. The Commission recommends the exten-sion of the Chem-Tree system to provide readyaccess by all fire departments and to includehazard control tactics. The hazard control tacticsmust come from joint efforts of the proposed Na-tional Fire Academy and representatives of theManufacturing Chemists Association.

The public, too, should become more aware ofthe risks in accidents involving hazardous ma-terials. An incident that happened near Waco,Ga., in June of 1971, illustrates the importanceof this. As a result of an accident, a truck carrying25,000 pounds of dynamite caught fire. Carsstopped, and people got out to watch. The driver,who escaped the fire, shouted to them to getaway-but to no avail. Six people died and 33were injured when the explosion came.

The awareness can be attained in many ways.Public fire safety educational materials shouldcontain pertinent information. Basic markings(once one system is adopted) can easily be in-cluded in school fire safety education. Groupssuch as the American Association of Motor Vehi-cle Administration, the American Driver andTraffic Safety Education Association, the Ameri-can Automobile Association, the North American

AMERICA BURNING 87

Professional Drivers Association, and the Na-tional Safety Council can, if given the proper in-formation, include it in literature going to theiraudiences.

Interstate and, in fact, most intrastate trans-port can be effectively controlled by the Depart-ment of Transportation, but the system some-times breaks down at international borders.Loading and unloading sometimes occurs instreets and lots, because the Bureau of Customsdoesn’t have the proper storage facilities. To cor-rect this situation, the Commission recommendsthat the Department of the Treasury establishadequate fire regulations, suitably enforced, forthe transportation, storage, and transfer of haz-ardous materials in international commerce.These efforts must be coordinated with local fireservices.

Motor Vehicle Safety

The problem of transporting hazardous materialsis dramatic, and failure of the system often causeslarge losses of life and property in a single incident.However, fires in motor vehicles cause almost 35percent of all fire deaths in the United States. Infact, more than 450,000 fires occurred in cars andtrucks in the United States in 1971, causingupward of 3,500 deaths and average losses of$200 per fire. That same year, the Bureau ofMotor Carrier Safety received 729 reports oftruck accidents involving fire. These accidentscaused 132 deaths, 309 non-fatal injuries, and$7,831,728 in property damage.

For the truck accidents, principal ignitionsources, in declining order of frequency, werecollision impact, defective wiring, hot tires, anddefective or hot bearings. Fires originating in car-go spaces were the most frequent, followed bythose originating in other vehicles or objects,and those starting at tires or wheels.

Records kept by Oregon’s State Fire Marshalindicate that the most frequent ignition sources inautomobile fires are backfires, electrical short cir-cuits, hot mufflers and exhaust pipes, smoking ma-terials, and incendiarism-in that order. Thematerials first ignited are gasoline and otherflammable liquids, electrical insulation, andupholstery.

A number of organizations, such as the Na-tional Safety Council, the American Trucking

88 TRANSPORTATION FIRE HAZARDS

Association, and the National Fire Protection As-sociation, have attempted to educate drivers andtrucking companies to high standards of fire safe-ty in the use and maintenance of motor vehicles.Power to prescribe safety features and levels ofsafety-related performance resides with the Na-tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration,established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970.In January 1971, that Administration publisheda flammability standard for the interior materialsof passenger cars, trucks, and buses, to take effectSeptember 1, 1972.

The Traffic Safety Administration also askedthe Oklahoma University Research Institute toevaluate the new standard. The Institute foundthe standard lacking, in that it requires “too milda test to achieve a significant reduction in propertyloss, much less injuries or fatalities, from vehiclefires.” All that the standard accomplishes, theInstitute’s report said, is to “discourage use ofnew materials for vehicle interiors which are moreflammable than those currently employed.”

Since gasoline spillage is a common cause ofvehicle fires, the location, construction, and secu-rity of fuel tanks are important design featuresfor fire safety. The most severe losses, in terms ofboth life and property, occur from fires followingrear-end collisions. Next in importance are roll-over accidents, followed by front-end collisions.Fuel tanks for passenger cars must meet a Federalstandard, which specifies a fixed collision barriertest and the allowable amount of fuel spillagefrom the tank and its connections in the test.(Somewhat more stringent requirements are im-posed on large trucks and buses. ) Studies made forthe Department of Transportation have indicatedthat the current procedure is not adequate toevaluate the performance of a car’s total fuelsystem in a fire situation. Studies by the CornellAeronautical Laboratory have shown that, whilea mid-vehicle location for a fuel tank is probablybest, location alone is not the total answer to thefire problem. Improvements can come onlythrough a consideration of the entire system : fueltank location, fuel line, electrical system and ex-haust routing, and configuration of the surround-ing structure. Consideration must also be given tothe evaporation emission control devices installedon all cars in recent years.

The indications, then, are that motor vehicles,

especially cars, are not as fire-safe as moderntechnology would allow. Improvements could bemade in design and materials, without significantadditional costs. The Commission recommendsthat the Department of Transportation setmandatory standards that will provide fire safetyin private automobiles. Both materials and struc-tural design should be considered in thesestandards.

Aircraft Fire Safety

On December 8, 1963, a Pan American Airwaysjet exploded and burned near Elkton, Md., kill-ing all 81 aboard. The frightening aspect for pas-sengers contemplating such an occurrence is thatthere is no escape: no running from the scene, ason land, no climbing into a lifeboat, as at sea.

Yet fire is the greater killer when it happensafter a crash landing. There have been numerousinstances when the impact of the landing did notkill passengers, but the ensuing fire did. One suchaccident cost 43 lives when a commercial aircraftcrash-landed near Salt Lake City in November of1965.

From the standpoint of dollar losses, the mostserious fires occur at airports and in hangars, usu-ally during the course of maintenance operations.A spectacular fire of this sort occurred in April of1969 at the Mercer County Airport, N. J. Beforeit was discovered, the flames were 25 feet high;before it was contained, it had destroyed 49 air-craft (mostly of the single-engine type), 13 heli-copters, a large hangar, the passenger terminalfacilities, and the offices of the airlines for a totalloss of over $3 million.

Considering the many materials available toburn (propulsion fuels, hydraulic oils, lubricat-ing oils, and ordinary combustibles and plastics),the many sources of ignition (electrical, contami-nation of oxygen lines or valves, lightning andelectrostatic charges, hazardous cargoes, andhuman carelessness), and the many ways an igni-tion source can come in contact with the com-bustibles, it is obvious that there are a largenumber of potentials for disastrous fires in therelatively confined space that constitutes the air-craft environment.

There are a number of areas in which researchand development could improve the fire safety ofaircraft :

Reduce chance of ignition. The fuel tanks, thefuels used, and the interior materials are thecritical considerations in efforts to reduce thelikelihood of fire in aircraft accidents.Increase the chance of survival. Once a firehas started, the buildup of poisonous fumes andheat is dependent upon many things, includingcompartmentation, ventilation, and materialsused. Standards of construction must considernot only how easily something can be ignited,but also the effect on survival once it is ignited.Detection and suppression of fires. When onthe rare occasion fire occurs during a flight, de-tection and suppression are normally swift andeffective. Aircraft fires during servicing andmaintenance are often not so efficiently dealtwith. Early automatic detection and suppres-sion systems for parked aircraft, including bet-

Every year, more than 3,500 Americans diein automobile fires. Better designfor safety could reduce these tragedies.

AMERICA BURNING 89

Fire results from many airplane crashes. This Boeing 737 crashed near Chicago’s Midway Airport in December, 1972.

ter fire suppression agents, seem to be neededat many airports.Presently, research on various aspects of aircraft

fire safety is scattered among several Federal agen-cies, both civil and military, and aircraft manufac-turers. Much research not specifically connectedwith aircraft fire safety will nonetheless have abearing on future improvements in that field. Co-ordination of these research efforts is important-first, to ensure that research priorities reflect thescale of needs for aircraft safety, and second, topromote the transfer of technology among themany segments of the aircraft industry and fromoutside the industry.

Many fire chiefs express considerable doubtthat they can save lives in an aircraft crash if fireerupts before suppression forces arrive. Theirfears are supported by Federal Aviation Admin-istration records, which show that of the 57 air-carrier accidents during the decade 1959 through1968 involving ground fire and fatalities, only 13occurred at airports and thus within reach of air-port firefighting equipment. In only one of these

90 TRANSPORTATION FIRE HAZARDS

13 cases were firefighters able to rescue passengers.The chief emphasis in aircraft fire safety, there-

fore, will have to be improved design of airplanesand continuation of the careful operation of air-craft that has resulted in an admirably low acci-dent rate for commercial aviation. Still, muchcan be done to improve the firefighting capabili-ties at airports. The National Fire ProtectionAssociation, the Federal Aviation Administration,the Air Line Pilots Association, and the Inter-national Civil Aviation Organization are upgrad-ing standards for airport firefighting. Many air-ports lag behind current standards. It would heappropriate for airport authorities to review theirfire suppression and rescue needs, to produceplans for coordinating the firefighting resources ofthe airfield and surrounding areas, and to set upcapital improvement budgets to bring their fire-fighting capabilities up to NFPA, FAA, andICAO standards. The Commission recommendsthat airport authorities review their firefightingcapabilities and, where necessary, formulate ap-propriate capital improvement budgets to meet

current recommended aircraft rescue and fire-fighting practices. We recognize that a firefight-ing capability adequate to handle a major disasteris expensive, particularly in terms of manpower,considering the rarity of fire accidents. There areavailable, however, multiple turret fire vehicleswhich require smaller crews than the severaltrucks they replace, and progress is being made inthe development of automated apparatus for air-port fire safety.

Marine Fire Safety

The position of the Coast Guard in maintain-ing a high level of marine fire safety is a difficultone. Many factors work against them. Long ex-perience in handling hazardous materials bycrews and longshoreman can lead to complacencyand carelessness. Pushed by schedules and finan-cial incentives to unload quickly, shippers oftenfail to use the expertise of chemical tankermen,who are certified by the Coast Guard, or marinechemists, who are certified by the National FireProtection Association. Since the incentives areoften contrary to good fire safety practice, theCoast Guard needs the support of all who canhelp. Attention should be called to the fact thatthe Department of Labor has safety responsibili-ties for the shipbuilders, repairers, and longshore-men. The presence of increasing amounts of highenergy fuels and other hazardous substancespassing through ports demands special attention.The Commission recommends that the Depart-ment of Transportation undertake a detailedreview of the Coast Guard’s responsibilities,authority, and standards relating to marinefire safety.

Railroad Transportation Fire Safety

With 200,000 miles of main track lines, the Na-tion’s rail network is vital to the economy. A fireaccident that incapacitates even a small portionof the rail system has an effect far beyond theactual scene of the accident.

An accident can be a local disaster if hazardousmaterials are involved in the fire. Usually the faultis not with the materials themselves. In Januaryof 1969, 15 exploding tank cars wreaked havocin Laurel, Miss., all because of a defective wheelon one of the cars. Three weeks after that inci-dent, a misaligned track derailed a train passing

through Crete, Nebr., and derailed cars struck atank car loaded with anhydrous ammonia stand-ing on a siding. Escaping ammonia gas killed sixpersons and injured 53. In both instances, thecause of the accident was a mechanical failure;the results were thermal and toxic nightmares.

Chronic problems with railroads are fires alongrights-of-way, usually started by brake shoe sparksor hot carbon sparks from diesel stacks. In 1970,there were reported 6,645 such fires in or nearforest lands; unreported thousands of fires burnedgrass and croplands.

Responsibility for preventing fire accidentsmust reside with the railroads themselves. Soundmaintenance practices are well known, but oftennot followed. Rights-of-way should be well-main-tained, kept free of flammable materials, and in-spected frequently; malfunctioning equipmentshould be quickly removed from service. TheCommission recommends that the railroads be-gin a concerted effort to reduce rail-caused firesalong the Nation’s rail system. Equipping non-turbo locomotives with exhaust spark arresters,reducing the frequency of mechanical and railfailures, adopting braking procedures and equip-ment designed to prevent hot brake shoe frag-ments from spewing, training crews in firesuppression, and providing trains with appro-priate fire suppression tools are measures forconsideration.

San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit ,known as BART, has signaled the beginning ofa new era of mass transit construction in theUnited States. As, these systems are developed,and as existing systems arc modernized, there willbe a need to protect the lives of those who musttravel through tunnels and over elevated tracks.Tunnels, especially, can be traps: In a Bostonsubway tunnel fire in February 1973, one persondied and more than 100 had to be treated in hos-pitals, mostly for smoke inhalation.

In a special study in 1970, the National Trans-portation Safety Board found that no safety con-dit ions were being attached to Urban MassTransportation Administration grants for rapidTail transit systems. In support of the Board’sfindings, the Commission recommends that theUrban Mass Transportation Administration re-quire explicit fire safety plans as a condition forall grants for rapid transit systems.

AMERICA BURNING 91

FIRE AND THE RURAL WILDLANDS ENVIRONMENT

13RURAL FIRE PROTECTION

About a quarter of the American people, ac-cording to the 1970 census, live on the Nation’s420 million acres of rural land.’ For many ofthese Americans, fire protection is woefully inade-quate. The same is true of many suburbandwellers whose political institutions and com-munity services have not kept pace with rapidpopulation growth.

Rural areas and rapidly developing suburbscan be plagued with many problems: insufficientwater supplies, lack of adequate building codesor too few inspectors to enforce them, insufficientfunds to pay firefighters or replace antiquatedequipment. Even where a strong volunteer firedepartment exists, inadequate alarm facilities andgreat distances to fires often result in responsetimes of 15 to 30 minutes or more.

Because many volunteer departments keepscanty records or no records at all, the seriousnessof the fire problem outside of metropolitan areasis difficult to gauge. According to the Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, the firefatality rate for white Americans in non-metro-

1 By including communities of up to 10,000, the con-gressional authors of the Rural Development Act of 1972encompassed 37 percent of Americans within their defini-tion of rural.

politan areas is half again as great as the rate forwhites in metropolitan counties (4 per 100,000versus 2.7 per 100,000). Among non-whites, thedisparity is even greater: 15.3 per 100,000 innon-metropolitan counties, 8.1 per 100,000 inmetropolitan counties. In New Hampshire, where56 percent of the land is classified as urban, 29out of the 32 deaths from fire in 1971 occurredin rural areas.

Fire officials in New Hampshire estimate thatif all rural homes had early-warning detectors,rural fire deaths would decline by as much as75 percent. In Chapter 11 we recommended thatmodel building codes call for early-warning de-tectors and alarms in every dwelling unit; inChapter 16, in addition to urging all Americansto install such devices, we recommend incentivesto encourage their installation. Here it is appro-priate to note the special plight of many ofAmerica’s rural and suburban dwellers. As inurban areas, most rural fire deaths occur at nightduring sleeping hours. A few minutes’ differenceinawakening to a fire can be a matter of life ordeath. But what is especially critical for ruraldwellers is that if they awake belatedly and aretrapped, it may be many minutes before the firedepartment arrives to rescue them. In the event

AMERICA BURNING 93

of a power or telephone failure, even notificationof the fire department may come too late. Withspecial urgency, the Commission recommendsthat rural dwellers and others living at a distancefrom fire departments install early-warning de-tectors and alarms to protect sleeping areas.Publishers of newspapers and magazines for farm-ers and country dwellers could perform a valuablepublic service by publicizing the importance ofthese devices.

The best fire equipment, properly located, can-not be effectively utilized without well-trainedfirefighters. While many rural volunteers receive

excellent training, there are many who do not.The risks to these men can be reduced and theireffectiveness improved by proper training. TheCommission received many pleas for improvedtraining in our survey of the Nation’s fire depart-ments. Unlike those in urban areas, one rural firedepartment usually cannot afford to support afire school. The consolidation of fire departmentsinto county-wide or regional jurisdictions, as weurged in Chapter 3, would permit better trainingprograms at less cost to the individual volunteersor their sponsoring departments. Strengtheningof training programs would also come about

A couple surveying their destroyed home typify the plight of rural citizens with inadequate fire protection.

94 RURAL FIRE PROTECTION

through the activities of the proposed NationalFire Academy and under Title IV of the RuralDevelopment Act.

The Rural Development Act

In its provisions for revitalizing the economyof rural America, the Rural Development Act of1972 recognizes that fire protection in rural areasmust grow apace. One section provides loans forwater supply systems for industrialized areasbeing constructed in rural communities. Title IVof the law, called Rural Community Fire Protec-tion, provides for assistance in organizing, train-ing, and equipping local fire protection forces.The assistance is both technical and financial,with the Federal Government assuming up to 50percent of the costs. Full and continuing fundingof the fire protection provisions of the RuralDevelopment Act is, in the Commission’s judg-ment, essential.

The Rural Development Act also specifies thatall applications for proposed water systems andother essential community fire protection facili-ties must be submitted to the agency that hasbeen designated by the State as the appropriateclearinghouse. The Commission recommendsthat U.S. Department of Agriculture assistanceto such projects be contingent upon an approvedmaster plan for fire protection for local firejurisdictions. (The master plan concept is dis-cused in detail in Chapter 4. ) This recommenda-tion is not meant to preclude Federal assistance,including financial assistance, to help local juris-dictions develop master plans for fire protection.Wherever possible, the master plan should be theproduct of county-wide or regional coordination.

There are several reasons why master plans forfire protection are vital for rural communities.The first shopping center or first factory in a rural

area can represent a huge jump in the demandsthat could be placed on the fire department’s sup-pression capabilities. It is especially important toplan the location of future fire stations to mini-mize the distances fire engines must travel and toprovide for built-in protection. Since funds,whether tax-based or volunteer, are generallyscarce in rural areas, coordinated planning isneeded to maximize the payoff in fire protection.

There are special problems to which masterplans for fire protection in rural areas should beaddressed. One is transportation fires, as dis-cussed in Chapter 12. Provisions should be madein the plan for training and for equipment ade-quate to handle these fires. The second specialconcern should be buildings that have outlivedtheir usefulness. Rural areas abound with them:schools not needed because of consolidation, vil-lage stores closed by nearby shopping centers, andfarm buildings now unused because a number ofsmall farms have combined into a large one. Thesestructures are enticing to mischievous arsonistsand to property owners for whom burning downa building is convenient disposal or even a sourceof profit. The master plan for fire protectionshould specify the limits of fire department re-sponsibility when such fires occur.

Only through planning for fire protection willthe impact of new structures on insurance and fireservice costs be controlled. Only in this way willthe responsibility of the public and that of the pri-vate sector (for example, company-supported firebrigades in industrial plants, automatic extin-guishing systems in larger buildings) be specified.Only in this way will a fire in a shopping centeror other large complex no longer be the first timeanyone realizes the water mains are too small andthe fire companies too few to stop a controllablefire from becoming a major disaster.

AMERICA BURNING 95

FIRE AND THE RURAL WILDLANDS ENVIRONMENT

14FOREST AND GRASSLAND

FIRE PROTECTIONDespite the urbanization of the United States,vast areas of the country still resemble the prime-val wilderness. Of the two billion-plus acres thatmake up the Nation, more than half consist of for-ests and grasslands. (Cities, highways, and water-ways constitute only 500 million acres, farmlandsand small wooded lots roughly the same amount.)

In recent years, forest and grass fires, ignitedat the rate of about 300 a day, have been destroy-ing an average of 4.7 million acres annually, Innational forests alone, resources lost by fireamounted to more than $700 million in 1970.Fire destroys the prized hardwoods of the north-cm forests, the pines that supply pulp mills in theSouth, the western species that go into plywoodand other lumber supplies. The losses, alreadyconsiderable, will grow critical as the Nation’sconsumption of industrial wood products rises.Presently that consumption amounts to 10.7billion cubic feet of timber annually. By the year2000, that consumption will nearly double to20.8 billion cubic feet.

Grassland fires destroy valuable range land,robbing domestic animals and wildlife of theirfood supply. Not only is vegetation removed, butheat from range fires often dries out root systemsand lays the soil bare. In turn the barren soil,

eroded by wind and water, pollutes the air andstreams, Erosion delays natural regeneration,sometimes stopping it altogether, leaving the soilsterile.

As urban sprawl encroaches on wildland areas,forest and grassland fires can pose a direct threatto man. In southern California during a l-monthperiod of critical fire weather in 1970, 1,260 firesburned more than 600,000 acres, killed 14 people,destroyed more than 900 houses and other struc-tures, and generated the potential for an after-math of erosion, floods, and mudslides. That sameyear, the Laguna Hills fire in San Diego Countyburned 225,000 acres and caused an estimated$100 million damage to dwellings, other build-ings, field crops, utilities, bridges, and otherfacilities.

As with other kinds of fires, man is the chief cul-prit. Nine out of ten forest and grassland firesare caused by human action (Figure 14-l) .About a fourth of these man-caused fires are setby arsonists; a slightly smaller fraction results frompeople burning debris. Those fires not caused byman are usually caused by lightning-l0,000 suchfires a year, resulting in about $100 million lossesannually. In the West, in fact, lightning is theleading cause of forest fires.

AMERICA BURNING 97

Figure 14-1. Percent of Fire Starts by Cause in 1971*

“Source: Forest Service, USDA.

Lightning-caused forest fires were a naturaland frequent occurrence in North America overthe millenia prior to the arrival of the first ocean-crossing settlers. But European civil izationbrought with it a propensity for making this nat-ural phenomenon a problem: Over the years,debris from logging and land-clearing-treetops,limbs, and chips-multiplied the accumulationof “dead fuel” waiting to be ignited and to ragewith great intensity, The encroachment of home-sites on wildlands and the use of forests for rec-reation have continued, and they have magnifiedthe threat of devastating fires.

Ironically, our Nation’s efforts in the twentiethcentury to save our forests has contributed to theproblem also. For the longer a forest remainsprotected from fire, the more dead fuel accumu-lates on the forest floor, thereby increasing thehazard of a major blaze. The chaparral forestsof southern California, for example, deposit asmuch as 1.3 tons of litter per acre every year.Other species in the Sierra Nevada deposit twicethat amount of litter. In recent years, the practiceof “prescribed burning”-to make forests moreproductive as well as to dispose of dead fuel-has won more and more adherents.

With forestlands in such abundance, theprevailing view in nineteenth century Americawas that forests could be harvested without re-placing trees and that forest fires posed no serious

98 FOREST AND GRASSLAND FIRE PROTECTION

problem. That view now threatens to be replacedby an equally erroneous notion: the romanticidea that the best management of nature is nomanagement at all.

In a year’s time, an acre of forest can convertsolar energy into vegetable matter equivalent toas much as 300 gallons of gasoline in potentialenergy. Like a helium balloon being inflated, aforest accumulates an ever-greater fuel load witheach passing year. To leave forest preservation tothe whims of nature, or to depend solely oncampers being careful in forests, simply courtsdisaster. Man must intervene directly with forestand grassland environments to preserve these im-portant resources.

Accumulated residue, as we have mentioned,can be burned off-through prescribed burningor piling-and-burning. Both require skilled oper-ators, careful control, and favorable environmen-tal conditions. Another approach is to replacevegetation that is highly flammable with low-lying plants of low flammability. In addition toreducing fire hazards, such conversion projectscan improve soil stability, increase water yield,improve the habitat for wildlife, and increase theproduction of forage.

Still another method of intervention is to clearstrips of forestland of all vegetation to createfirebreaks. A modification of this is the fuel break :strips of land in which only plants of low flamma-bility are allowed to thrive.

A very different approach to discourage forestand grassland fires lies in weather modification-specifically, in inducing rain to counter the haz-ards pf a dry season or in suppressing lightning.But the approach is controversial: first, becauseeffects are unpredictable; second, because effortsthat have good effects in one place may havebad effects elsewhere. In Colorado, for example,potato growers have taken barley growers to court,claiming that the latter’s efforts to suppress hailstorms reduced precipitation so drastically thatpotato crops were ruined.

The Bureau of Land Management, an armof the Department of Interior, has launched aneffort to abate lightning and to increase precipi-tation in Alaska. (Tests in the mid- 1960’s showedthat seeding clouds with silver iodide nuclei couldreduce cloud-to-ground lightning strikes by asmuch as 60 percent.) These efforts will have to

be carefully monitored to determine whether they program, which has been credited with savinghave any undesirable effects. $17 billion in fire losses,

The Agencies that Protect Wildlands

Responsibility for fire protection on Federal landlies, primarily, within the Departments of Agri-culture and Interior. Other agencies, such as theDepartment of Defense and the Tennessee ValleyAuthority, are involved to a lesser extent. Eachof the 50 States also has an agency responsiblefor fire protection of wildlands.

Further, the Forest Service has a Fire and At-mospheric Sciences Research and DevelopmentProgram. It supports basic and applied researchon a broad range of subjects, from fire preventionto forest surveillance, and from hazard reductionto suppression methods. In addition to researchin its three major laboratories, the program sup-ports work by university scholars, industrial re-search groups, and fire control agencies.

The Forest Service, a division of the U.S. De-partment of Agriculture, protects 203 millionacres in 154 national forests and 3.8 million acresin 19 national grasslands. The Forest Service hasa Congressional mandate to seek a balance amongcompeting needs, such as timber, watershed man-agement, protection of wildlife, and recreation.To provide fire protection, the Forest Service doesnot hesitate to alter the natural environment. Forexample, in fiscal year 1970, it converted 34,941acres of highly flammable brush to perennialgrasses. At the end of that year, the Forest Servicereported that the national forests contained 3,882miles of fuel and firebreaks. Government ex-perts, however, estimate that an additional 22,000miles of fuel breaks are needed to prevent decima-tion of our forests.

A total of 545 million acres comes under thejurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.Its Bureau of Land Management provides fireprotection for 455 million acres, and its Bureauof Indian Affairs protects 48 mill ion acres.Through contracts, these two Bureaus protect anadditional 110 million acres of State and privatelands. Finally, the National Park Service and theBureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife provideprotection to 14 million and 30 million acresrespectively.

As Table 14-1 indicates, the protection recordof the 50 State fire agencies and the two majorFederal agencies-the Forest Service and the Bu-reau of Land Management-has been improvingsignificantly.

The Forest Service also has cooperative agree-ments with each of the 50 States to provide fireprotection for lands in all major watersheds-575 million acres, all told. Federal support tothe States takes the form of financial assistance(on a cost-sharing basis), training, inspection, im-plementation of research results, and the develop-ment and procurement of fire equipment.

Also in cooperation with the States, the ForestService conducts the Smokey Bear educational

The improvements over the past two decadeswould be even more impressive were it not for anumber of very large fires in 1968 and 1969. In-deed, it is the occasional fire that “gets away”which presents the greatest problem in wildlandmanagement. An accumulation of highly flamma-ble vegetation or a long dry season are open in-vitations to such fires. While large fires-over 300acres-account for less than 1 percent of totalfires, they account for 60 percent of the acresburned and a high percentage of the total loss of

Table 14-1 Effect of Fire Protection in Forests and Wildlands

Period

Average number Average number of acres burned per year-all causesof man-caused

fires per National State and Bureaumillion acres forest private of Land

protected Management

1950-59 139 261,264 8,074,797 1,235,9961960-69 99 196,000 3,704,871 874,342

Source: Forest Service, U.S.D.A.

AMERICA BURNING 99

life and resources. Firefighters also have theirhands full when there are multiple ignitions-as,for example, when lightning strikes in severalplaces or when sparks from damaged train wheelsset fires along a railroad right of way.

Nearly every wildland fire is a candidate forstatus as a major fire if the conditions are right.Against that possibility measures must be taken.First in order of priority is fire prevention-re-ducing the number of starts. Second is prepared-ness; this includes intervening in the environmentso that, if a fire starts, it will not rage out of con-trol ; it also includes early detection and response.Third in order of priority is initial attack-that is,stopping fires while they are small with ade-quately trained and equipped forces. The fourthmeasure is suppression of major fires.

Fire Prevention

Smokey Bear is a great success story in the fieldof wildland fire protection. Yet the average of300 forest and grassland fires a day shows thatthe message is not getting through to everyone.While much information has been gathered con-cerning the effectiveness of Smokey Bear, the au-

dience reached is not precisely known. This audi-ence must be identified and a program devised toextend the coverage to other groups who causeforest and grassland fires. In support of such aneffort, the Forest Service has conducted studiesconcerning the personalities and background ofthose persons known to have caused wildlandfires. The results of these efforts must find a wayinto all school courses that deal with the ecology,and into other appropriate educational media.Hence, the Commission recommends that theproposed United States Fire Administration joinwith the Forest Service, U.S.D.A., in exploringmeans to make fire safety education for forestand grassland protection more effective.

The effectiveness of fire prevention on non-Federal wildlands, in fact, depends heavily onthe adequacy and enforcement of State fire laws.At present, several States-California, Florida,Georgia, and Oregon among them-have ex-cellent fire laws. Other States lag far behind. TheCommission recommends that the Council ofState Governments undertake to develop modelstate laws relating to fire protection in forestsand grasslands.

Prescribed burning is one way of reducing the accumulation of needles, branches, and other dead fuel from forests.

100 FOREST AND GRASSLAND FIRE PROTECTION

Air tankers, dropping water or chemical retardents, have proved especially valuable in limiting the spread of fire.

These laws should require, as a minimum:permits for debris burning, the use of fire safetydevices for mechanical equipment operating inwildlands, strict zoning and building regulations,the construction and maintenance of firebreaks,and the establishment of access and escape routes.Provision should be made for such emergencymeasures as shutting down logging operations orrescheduling the hunting season during times ofsevere fire danger.

Once these laws are enacted, they will only beas effective as the enforcement. Several have testi-fied to this Commission that, in many high-hazard areas, enforcement and court cooperationare inadequate.’ The Commission urges inter-ested citizens and conservation groups to ex-amine fire laws and their enforcement in theirrespective States and to press for strictcompliance.

If fire prevention efforts are to be effective,they must be aimed at the real, rather than imag-ined, causes of fire. This, in turn, means thataccurate and detailed reports of forest and grass-land fires must be gathered and analyzed. Thenational data collection system, recommended inChapter 1, applies to wildland fires no less thanto other kinds of fires.

Preparedness

The rate at which natural fuels build up depends,in part, on the type of vegetation, its growth rate,and its rate of decay. It also depends on climate.Rainfall and temperatures obviously influencegrowth rates. What is not so obvious is the factthat decay is faster in warm-moist than in warm-dry or cold-moist weather. Were it possible, onthe basis of a few indicators, to predict far in ad-vance which wildlands are building up fuel tohazardous levels, then it could be determinedwhich wildlands should get first priority formodification-whether prescribed burning, fuelbreaks, or other appropriate means. Educatedguesswork for such predictions already exists;what is needed is firmer grounding in science.The Commission recommends that the ForestService, U.S.D.A., develop the methodology tomake possible nationwide forecasting of fuelbuildup as a guide to priorities in wildlandmanagement.

One element important to the success of suchforecasting is long-range weather prediction.That elusive goal is the subject of numerous Fed-eral research projects. In the meantime, the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationis devising a National Fire Weather Service to

AMERICA BURNING 101

aid fire control agencies. The forecast and ad-visory field services portion of the program islagging and another portion that should bepushed is a research and development programto apply improvements in weather technology tofire weather forecasting. The Commission supports the development of a National FireWeather Service in NOAA and urges i tsacceleration.

Preparedness also depends upon adequate sur-veillance of fire-prone lands. Increasingly, lookout

towers are being supplemented by aircraft sur-veillance, including planes equipped with infra-red sensors. The feasibility of using satellites forinfrared detection of fires merits exploration.

Over the years, the Forest Service has given in-creased emphasis to preparedness. In general,larger investments in pre-suppression effortsshould be matched with a downward trend in thecost of emergency suppression of large-scale fires.Evidence of the value of preparedness comes froma long-term look at the record of the Forest Serv-

A forest fire out of control, like this one near Los Angeles, can become a direct threat to whole communities.

102 FOREST AND GRASSLAND FIRE PROTECTION

ice (Table 14-2). If 1971 fires had burned at the1951 average acreage per fire rate, 172,000 acreswould have been lost, instead of the 36,266 acresactually burned over. At the 1956 average acre-age per fire rate, 102,000 acres would have beenlost.

Initial Attack and Suppression

Under conditions of drought or high winds, forestand grassland fires can move with unbelievablespeed. Winds have been known to carry fire alongtreetops more than a mile from where the fire isburning at ground level. Fires have leapt 300yards across freeways. A vital ingredient in effec-tive suppression, therefore, is early detection, fol-lowed by swift initial attack with sufficient fire-fighting forces.

In addition to well-trained firefighters, effectiveinitial attack depends on access by road or trail,p lus the equ ipment tha t can be dep loyed-tractors, plows, and aircraft, for example. Airtankers and helicopters, dropping water or chemi-cal retardants, have proved especially valuable inlimiting the spread of fire. The efficiency andeffiectiveness of amphibious air tankers have beenincreased in many areas through the use of water-scooping capabilities. Helicopters have alsoproved valuable for rescue operations and trans-port of firefighters.

Recognizing the important role of these air-craft, the Forest Service and cooperating agencieshave begun a program to upgrade aircraft, pro-vide more landing strips, and improve the effec-tiveness of retardants. In addition, some AirForce planes are being equipped with modulartank equipment to supplement strike forces forsevere emergencies.

The Ecology-Minded Public

More than for most kinds of fires, there aregrounds for optimism about the efforts against

Table 14-2. National Forest Fire Record

January 1-July 31

1951 1956 1971

Number of fires 1,263 1,765 2,319Acres burned 94,011 77,679 36,266Average acreage per fire 74 44 16

forest and grassland fires. The capabilities of Fed-eral, State, and local control agencies are excel-lent. More heartening still, Americans have takena new interest in the preservation of the Nation’sunspoiled wildlands.

They are visiting State and national parks asnever before, thus straining the parks’ capacitiesand leaving them a little worse for wear. As theNation’s population grows, pressures will grow togive over wildlands to human settlement. Yet itis clear that future generations will need moreunspoiled recreation lands, not less.

Americans know their obligations to others.They know that litter left behind today will be anannoyance to park visitors tomorrow. They knowthat a carelessly tossed cigarette or a campfire notadequately doused can turn a rich natural en-vironment into a black wasteland. Care with fireis more than a moral imperative. It is a soundprinciple of ecological management.

A carelessly tossed cigarette or a campfirenot adequately doused can turn a richnatural environment into a black wasteland.

AMERICA BURNING 103

FIRE PREVENTION

15FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

Among the many measures that can be takento reduce fire losses, perhaps none is more im-portant than educating people about fire. Ameri-cans must be made aware of the magnitude offire’s toll and its threat to them personally. Theymust know how to minimize the risk of fire intheir daily surroundings. They must know howto cope with fire, quickly and effectively, onceit has started. Public education about fire hasbeen cited by many Commission witnesses andothers as the single activity with the greatestpotential for reducing losses.

In the Commission’s poll of those who livedaily with destructive fire-fire service person-nel-98 percent of those who replied agreed thatthere is a need for greater education of the publicin fire safety. Two-thirds agreed that most firesoccur because of public apathy toward good fireprevention practices. (The larger the populationserved, the stronger was the tendency to be inagreement with this view. ) To what extent apathywould be better labeled “ignorance” or merely“low priority concern” can only be guessed,

In the Commission’s estimate, about 70 percentof the fires that occur in buildings can be attrib-uted to the careless acts of people,’ and together

these fires caused by human action account formore than $800 million in property losses (Table15-l). It is these fires that should be the specialtarget of educational efforts designed to preventthem from happening.

The prevention of fires due to human careless-ness is not all that fire safety education can hopeto accomplish. Many fires caused by faulty equipment rather than carelessness could be preventedif people were training to recognize hazards. Andmany injuries and deaths could be prevented ifpeople knew how to react to a fire, whatever itscause.

As one writer has summed up the problem,“A significant factor contributing to the causeand spread of fire is human failure-failure torecognize hazards and take adequate preventivemeasures, failure to act intelligently at the out-break of the fire, failure to take action whichwould limit damage.”2 These failures cannot be

1 The Commission’s estimate is at variance with otherestimates, but all such efforts involve approximations, ifonly because a large number of building fires are reportedin which the cause is unknown.

2 Deuel Richardson, “The Public and Fire Protection,”NFPA Quarterly, July 1962, p. 4.

AMERICA BURNING 105

Table 15-l. Estimated Percentage of Building Fires and Losses Attributable to Human Action

Cause

(1)

Percentattributedto human

action

(2)

Numberof fires 1

(3) (4) (5)

Number Property loss 1 Property lossof fires attributed to

attributed human actionto human (Cal. 1X4)

action(Col. 1X2)

Heating and cooking equipment 75 157,700 118,275 $172,895,030 $129,671,250Smoking and matches 100 118,400 118,400 98,344,OOO 98,344,OOOElectrical 50 160,900 80,450 271,269,OOO 135,634,500Rubbish, ignition source unknown 75 34,400 25,800 21,754,OOO 16,315,500Flammable liquid fires 75 64,900 48,675 53,931,000 40,448,250Open flames and sparks 75 74,100 55,575 100,156,OOO 75,117,000Lightning 0 22,200 40,335,000Children and matches 100 70,400 70,400 72,285,OOO 72,285,OOOExposure (to another fire) 0 23,200 42,148,OOOIncendiary (suspicious) 100 72,100 72,100 232,947,000 232,947,000Spontaneous ignition 33 15,700 5,233 25,606,OOO 8,535,OOOGas fires and explosions (not re-

ported elsewhere) 50 8,200 4,100 21,074,OOO 10,537,000Explosions (miscellaneous and un-

classified) 50 4,400 2,200 5,212,000 2,606,OOO

Totals 826,600 601,2082 $1,158,046,000 $822,440,500 3

1 Loss data from “Fires and Fire Losses Classified,” Fire Journal, September, 1972 (pp. 65-69). Data in this tableexclude two categories where human action cannot be estimated (i.e.: “Unknown or Unidentified” and “Miscellane-o u s K n o w n ” ) . -

2 72.8 percent.3 71.2 percent.

legislated out of existence; they must be dealt America. And still, thousands of Americans diewith through education. needlessly every year.

Day in and day out, firefighters see the evidenceof human failure. They see pennies in fuse boxesand 30-ampere fuses where 15-ampere fusesought to be. They see the tragic consequences oftrash or flammable liquids stored near furnaces,overloaded electrical circuits, gas heaters im-properly vented. They find the victims of fire whohave died in their sleep because they failed to takethe routine precaution of always sleeping withbedroom doors closed. And when they can getto them, they find the charred bodies of those whotook a fatal gamble with fire: who opened ahot door, who dashed through smoke instead ofcrawling along the floor, who might have sur-vived the gauntlet if they had held a wet clothover nose and mouth. Organizations like theNational Fire Protection Association and the Na-tional Safety Council have based their fire safetymessages on these common failings (see box, page115). Firefighters and others have brought thesemessages into the homes and classrooms of

Public Education Reduces Deaths and Injuries

A cynic might remark that this widespread igno-rance shows that Fire Prevention Week, schoolprograms in fire safety, and all the posters andpamphlets on fire prevention are wasted efforts.Yet we do not know how much worse the Nation’sfire record would be if there were no educationalefforts. Moreover, we do know that public educa-tion programs can dramatically reduce fire losses.Two studies supported by the Bureau of Com-munity Environmental Management, an arm ofthe Department of Health, Education, and Wel-fare, provide evidence of this. Though small inscope, the studies are among the few in whichresults of fire prevention efforts have beenmeasured.

Between 1966 and 1969, an intensive firesafety education program was directed at an areaof southeast Missouri where the fire death ratewas far higher than the national average. The

106 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

first step was to study the pattern of fires andburn injuries and their causes. Then a field staffwas trained to administer the program, Civicgroups, fire departments, local officials, and themass media cooperated with the program. Thepublic got fire safety messages every way theyturned-from audiovisual demonstrations, educa-tional programs, and media broadcasts. The re-sult: The fire death rate dropped 43 percent in3 years-from 12.9 to 7.4 per 100,000 popula-tion. For each dollar invested in the program, 20dollars were saved in anticipated property losses,medical expenses, and earning losses. Two yearsafter the pilot program was terminated, the deathrate was still falling-five times faster than thatof the rest of the State.

A similar study had been carried out 8 yearsearlier in Mississippi County, Arkansas. There,studies showed that misuse of electrical wiring sys-tems and petroleum products, plus use and storageof flammable products near heating units, ledother causes of fire. The public education programemphasized these problems. Following the firstyear of the education program, there were onlyhalf as many burn injuries requiring medicaltreatment as the year before. This favorable trendcontinued during ensuing years.

A number of incidents in recent years havedemonstrated that when people have fire safetyon their minds, fires decrease in number. In eachincident, people were fire-conscious because theyknew normal fire protection was not available tothem. It happened in a midwestern city when asevere snowstorm immobilized all traffic, includ-ing fire trucks. It happened in several Americancities in the late 1960’s when fire departmentswere tied up in riot-torn areas. It has happenedwhen fire departments have been battling land-slides or coping with floods. In each case, thenumber of fires dwindled to a fraction of thenormal.

A striking example of long-term success in firesafety education is the Smokey Bear campaign.That effort , supported by Federal and Stateforest agencies, has been described as the coun-try’s most successful program of environmentalprotection.

For 30 years public service advertising hasurged Americans to prevent forest fires. Duringthese years man-caused forest fires have been re-

duced from about 200,000 annually to about105,000 in 1971. This reduction was achievedeven though the land area for which statistics arekept has doubled and the number of days of rec-reation use has increased about tenfold. A dou-bling of the acreage alone would be expected tohave resulted in 400,000 fires annually, but, asindicated, only 105,000 occurred. This overallreduction by 75 percent in the number of fireswhich would otherwise be expected to occur (as-suming that the increased exposure to peopleleads in equal measure to chance of fire and thechance of early detection) has helped save $17billion in natural resources over the 30-year pe-riod. The cost of this program to Federal andState agencies is about $488,000 per year, withapproximately $40 million in service donated bythe Nation’s radio and television stations, news-papers, magazines, and the Advertising Council,

Current Efforts to Reach the Public

Though we as a Nation have not made the com-mitment to fire safety education that we ought, anumber of efforts-by professional societies, theinsurance industry, fire departments and othergovernmental agencies-are reaching some por-tion of the American people effectively.

Private organizations. Through posters andpamphlets (17 million distributed last year), theNational Fire Protection Association brings a firesafety message to millions of Americans everyyear. The National Fire Protection Association isinstrumental in promoting the annual Fire Pre-vention Week campaign, the Sparky the Fire Dogcampaign in schools, and seasonal fire preventioncampaigns in the spring and at Christmas.

The American Insurance Association annuallydistributes more than 26 million pamphlets toschools, hospitals, and other organizations. Itsfilms reach an audience of more than two millionpeople each year. Through the special training itprovides to thousands of fire inspectors workingfor insurance companies, the American InsuranceAssociation has an indirect but considerable effecton public education.

Insurers in the industrial and commercial sec-tors, notably the Factory Mutual System and theFactory Insurance Association, affect the safetyof millions of Americans at their places of work,through counsel on fire prevention engineering,

AMERICA BURNING 107

Sparky the Fire Dog, a creation of the National Fire Protection Association, teaches fire safety to children.

inspections, and distribution of publications, films,and posters.

In addition, a number of insurance companiesreach the public with fire safety messages. Pilotefforts have been made to teach fire safety indeteriorated neighborhoods where the Fair Accessto Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan is inoperation. (Under the FAIR plan, subject to theFederal Insurance Administration, companiesagree to insure properties that would not qualifyunder ordinary requirements.) Limited experi-ence has shown that the efforts work only if sup-port is won from local community leaders.

Lastly, the Fire Equipment ManufacturersAssociation distributes about 200,000 fire ex-tinguisher selection charts and several millionextinguisher operation manuals every year.

The Federal Government. With the very con-trasting exception of the Forest Service’s SmokeyBear program, the Federal Government is in-volved in only a limited way in fire safety educa-

108 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

tion-except as it affects Government installa-tions. Each Federal agency has responsibility forinternal fire prevention. There is a Federal FireCouncil that pulls together Federal fire-loss statis-tics, serves as a clearinghouse and central libraryof fire literature for the Federal agencies, andsponsors a limited program of fire safety trainingfor Government personnel. Unfortunately, the ac-tivities of the Federal Fire Council have beenextremely limited in recent years. There is noprogram in the Federal Government directedtoward the public at large to prevent fire losses.

Fire departments. Local fire departmentsmake significant contributions to public educa-tion--through inspections of dwellings and com-mercial establishments, through distribution ofreading material on fire safety, and through co-operation with schools.

In sum, a variety of ways are being tried toheighten public consciousness of fire safety. Thevery fact that the educational efforts come from a

multiplicity of sources in a variety of ways prob-ably serves to heighten public awareness of firesafety. Yet it is safe to assume, given the sheernumber of efforts, that some programs are farless effective than others. What is needed is amechanism for evaluating these programs so thatweak efforts can be replaced by coordinated sup-port of efforts of proven effectiveness.

Fire Safety Education in the Schools

Habits of fire safety are best instilled during theyears of childhood, especially since youngsters areparticularly prone to fire accidents, That firesafety education in schools can be effective isillustrated by a pilot study supported by the Bu-reau of Community Environmental Managementof HEW.

In 1971, a demonstration project was begun inMemphis, Tenn., to determine the effectivenessof teaching safety concepts to young school chil-dren. Forty-three elementary school teachers at-tended a 22-hour series of workshops on an injurycontrol curriculum. Emphasis was placed onteaching burn prevention concepts. The teachersreturned to their classes and taught what theyhad learned to 1,016 children, ranging from kin-dergarten to the third grade. In the study area,burn injuries have decreased by 17 percent, whilein a control area with similar population, burninjuries have increased by 100 percent. Becauseof the success of the pilot project, safety educationis now being taught to all elementary schoolchildren in the Memphis school system.

How do other schools measure up? In anattempt to learn how much fire safety educationin schools is required throughout the Nation, wewrote to the board of education in each of the50 States, asking about programs in fire safety.Forty-two States replied to our request. Of these,seven reported that they have no State programof fire education. Four of these-Arkansas, Kan-sas, Tennessee, and Alaska (which has the high-est fire fatality and personal loss record in theNation) --expressed interest in starting a fire edu-cation program and asked the Commission’s help.It seems safe to assume that the eight that didnot reply have no program.

Among the States requiring fire safety educa-tion, Iowa, Minnesota, and New York appear tohave the most complete curricula in the field.

New York law calls for 15 minutes of fire educa-tion a week in all grades, kindergarten throughninth grade (over and above time spent on firedrills), while Minnesota requires 60 minutes aweek of health and fire education. While someStates do have legal requirements and well de-veloped curricula, conversations with State offi-cials reveal that implementation of these pro-grams is not well enforced or programs arenon-existent in many schools. One State teachesthe dangers of ammunition, homemade bombs,and fireworks in the second grade but does notget around to the subject of matches until thethird grade.

We need to point out that the absence of astatewide fire education program does not neces-sarily mean that there is no fire education in theState. Local school boards, fire departments, orother groups may be filling the void-at least inpart. Some communities have exemplary pro-grams. In Santa Ana, Calif., a city of 165,000people, an imaginative program in the classroomsis supplemented by demonstrations by the firedepartment, a parade at the end of Fire Preven-tion Week, a poster contest, and a carnival forschoolchildren in May. Civic groups are as deeplyinvolved in the program as the schools and thefire department.

But the Santa Anas are the exception, not therule. The Nation’s widespread ignorance aboutfire safety and the failure of many States to pro-vide even minimal education in the subject un-derscore the need for Federal intervention. TheCommission recommends that the Departmentof Health, Education, and Welfare include inaccreditation standards fire safety education inthe schools throughout the school year. Onlyschools presenting an effective fire safety educa-tion program should be eligible for any Federalfinancial assistance.

Because fire safety has been ignored in the edu-cation of teachers, there are few educators withthe knowledge or qualifications to teach it. TheCommission recommends that the proposedUnited States Fire Administration sponsor firesafety education courses for educators to providea teaching cadre for fire safety education.

The Commission recommends to the States theinclusion of fire safety education in programs ed-ucating future teachers and the requirement of

AMERICA BURNING 109

As a prelude to teaching fire safety to children, many fire departments demonstrate their apparatus for them.

110 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

knowledge of fire safety as a prerequisite forteaching certification.

Our concern over the lack of public education,and particularly education of the young, is by nomeans new. In fact, it was expressed a quarter ofa century ago by the 1947 President’s Conferenceon Fire Prevention, many of whose recommenda-tions, unfortunately, remain to be implemented.

That the Federal Government shows moreinterest in protecting its trees than its citizensfrom fire merely reflects the long-standing indif-ference of Americans to the problem of fire losses.But the imbalance deserves to be rectified. Whilethe National Fire Protection Association andothers are doing significant work in fire safety edu-cation, the Nation is not realizing anywhere nearthe benefit of the potential loss reduction possiblethrough fire safety education. The Commisionbelieves that a significant increase in effort isnecessary and that this will only come about bythe involvement of the Federal Government.

The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration develop a pro-gram, with adequate funding, to assist, augment,and evaluate existing public and private firesafety education efforts. The program should bedirected, first of all, toward encouraging localgovernments and the private sector to do more,reinforcing efforts with incentives when necessary.Secondly, it should seek effective ways to reachcritical target areas where special educationalefforts are warranted, such as young children andthe vast numbers of the poor whose education islimited. Thirdly, it should develop model pro-grams and guide local governments in their adap-tation to local circumstances.

Further, the Commission recommends that theproposed U.S. Fire Administration, in conjunc-tion with the Advertising Council and the Na-tional Fire Protection Association, sponsor anall-media campaign of public service advertisingdesigned to promote public awareness of firesafety. In developing this campaign, the U.S.Fire Administration should provide for test mar-keting, evaluation, and periodic revision of themessages. Major emphasis should be placed onfire prevention in the home. This campaignshould include national and regional efforts byall communications media directed toward spe-cific fire-prone groups, such as the young and the

elderly. The campaign should cover seasonal firehazards, and should be geared through language,background, and program timing to the impor-tant recipients. Mass media education should notonly create an awareness of fire hazards and firesafety, but should provide specific instruction onwhat to do and what not to do and motivatechanges in attitudes and behavior.

Evaluation is an especially important phase ofthe recommended programs. Effectiveness of firesafety messages is best not left to guesswork. Thebest techniques of persuasion (admittedly, a fieldundeveloped as a science) must go into the mes-sage; the most exacting standards of testing mustgo into the evaluation of results. The latter is truewhether results are being measured in terms ofattitude changes, elimination of hazards, or de-cline in fire accidents. In all such testing, resultsshould be compared with a control group, con-sisting of a similar population, that has not re-ceived the fire safety message. It would be appro-priate for the U.S. Fire Administration to assistnon-profit organizations, such as the National FireProtection Association, in evaluating their effortsin fire safety education, It would also be appro-priate for the US. Fire Administration to under-write basic studies of techniques for motivatingtarget audiences.

Special Opportunities

While it is premature to say what techniqueswork best, two pilot projects sponsored by theDepartment of Health, Education, and Welfaresuggest approaches that could be adopted on amuch wider scale. The first of these was tried inNorfolk, Va., in 1969. Specially trained parapro-fessionals, called Injury Control Technicians, wentfrom house to house in the target area in the com-pany of housing-hygiene inspectors. The techni-cians acted as home environment counselors tohelp residents of the area identify injury hazardsand, where possible, eliminate them. (All kindsof hazards were pertinent, but fire hazards werea major consideration.) The advice of the techni-cians was welcomed by the residents and, as aresult, an average of five important hazards perhousehold were eliminated.

In the second project, now in its fifth year, 500specially trained paraprofessionals, called HealthEducator Aides, are working in 36 cities. Re-

AMERICA BURNING 111

cruited mostly from the poor neighborhoods theyserve, they have proven effective in reaching thepoor and altering their behavior for their owngood. While most of their work has been in ro-dent control, HEW’s Bureau of Community En-vironmental Management is confident H.E.A.‘scould be used to improve fire safety in poor neigh-borhoods. If H.E.A.‘s spent 10 percent of theirtime on fire safety, as the Bureau recommends, itwould cost $14.6 million to bring fire safety edu-cation to the Nation’s 15 million disadvantagedfamilies. The Bureau estimates that if the pro-gram reduced fire losses among this population byonly 2.6 percent, the expenditure would beeconomically justified, but that a reduction of 10percent is easily attainable.

In addition to health aides, there are a num-ber of other Americans in occupations where, ifthey had special training in fire safety, they couldfavorably influence the safety of others:l Attendants in nursing homes, hospitals, and in-

stitutions for the handicapped should havespecial training to handle their difficult respon-sibilities during fire emergencies. Evacuation isusually a slow process and, with certain pa-tients, sometimes impossible ; and emergenciescan be compounded by irrational behavior ofpatients.

l Employees of restaurants, hotels, and places ofpublic assembly should be trained to lead pa-trons to exits, to extinguish small fires, and torender first aid.

l Physicians are valued counselors on a host ofsubjects ranging from nutrition to behavioralproblems. Their advice on fire safety could beespecially important to families with youngchildren or elderly relatives in their care.

l Millions of preschool children spend part oftheir time under the care of teachers and work-ers in nursery schools, day care centers, andHead Start programs, In these contacts lie valu-able opportunities for lessons in fire safety ap-propriate to the preschool age group.

l There are approximately 20,000 resident man-agers of major (150-330 units) federally as-sisted housing facilities for low-income families.Currently these managers are being offeredtraining opportunities in such subjects as ad-ministration, management of physical facilities,and human and family relations by the feder-

112 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

ally funded National Center for Housing Man-agement. If these resident managers had specialtraining in fire safety, they could affect the well-being of 10 million Americans who live in thesefederally assisted housing projects.These special situations merit special attention.

The Commission recommends that the proposedU.S. Fire Administration develop packets ofeducational materials appropriate to each occu-pational category that has special needs or opportunities in promoting fire safety. In many in-stances, these packets could be distributed byprofessional organizations in the private sector ona shared-cost basis.

While Health Educator Aides and other para-professionals can supplement the residential in-spection programs of fire departments by callingcitizens’ attention to hazards and sound practicesof fire safety, they in no way diminish the needfor thorough inspection programs by fire depart-ments. Trained firefighters can bring to residentialinspections an expertise exceeding that of para-professionals for whom fire safety is a part-timeconcern.

A National Program for Fire Safety Education

The Commission believes that an overall reduc-tion of at least 2 percent per year in life loss,property loss, and injuries is a realistic and con-servative goal for a national fire safety educationprogram. We believe that the three-part programoutlined in Table 15-2 will reach that goal in theearly years of implementation, based on currentfire loss statistics. We emphasize that parts of theprogram must be designed to provide feedbackinformation on program effectiveness-informa-tion which is essential to achieving optimumbenefit, yet is usually not collected.

Multimedia public service education. Thisnationwide program should be directed to thepublic at large through all forms possible, withan approach similar to the Smokey Bear cam-paign. The $1.5 million annual cost is a realisticestimate, based on previous public servicecampaigns.

Intensive local education. This part of theprogram should be aimed at that 5 percent ofthe Nation’s population in areas suffering thehighest loss of life from fire: Alaska, severalSouthern States, and the poor sections of large

Table 1-52. Estimated Annual Savings and Costs of a Fire Safety Education Program

ProgramEstimated savings Estimated

FederalLives Injuries Property cost

Nationwide multimedia public service education program 120 3,000 $27,000,000Intensive local education programs (directed to 5 percent

$1,500,000

of Nation’s population with highest life loss risks) 76 1,900 4,300,000Nationwide elementary schoolchild education

2,100,00066 1,600 8,700,OOO 6,000,OOO

Total 262 6,500 $40,000,000 $9,600,000

cities. Various pilot projects have achieved sig-nificant reductions of fire incidence and burn in-juries and deaths. The Arkansas pilot projectmentioned earlier achieved a 50 percent reduc-tion in burn injuries, while the one in Missouriresulted in a 14 percent reduction per year in firedeaths. The volunteer fire department of EastAurora, N.Y., reported a 28 percent reduction inthe number of fires and a 52 percent reduction indollar losses, achieved through a public educationcampaign. In Rochester, N.Y., spot announce-ments on television during station breaks con-tributed to a 15 percent annual reduction insmoking-related fires and an 18 percent annualreduction in fires caused by children and matches,

Cost-effectiveness as high as 20 to l-that is,$20 saved in losses prevented for every dollarspent on education-has been reported. Where

volunteers are used or the media donate spaceor time, cost-benefit ratios can be even higher.

Past experience shows that the 760 lives lostin the high risk 5 percent of our population couldbe reduced by 10 percent year year. An invest-ment of $2.1 million each year to reach thissegment of the population could be expected toreduce fire injuries by 1,900 and property lossesby $4.3 million annually.

Education of children in schools. Continuouseducation of children of elementary school agecan, we believe, result in an annual 10 percentreduction in deaths and injuries within that groupand an equal reduction in child-caused fires, es-pecially those involving children and matches. Wehave estimated that for an annual cost of $6 mil-lion, specialized training can be provided for acorps of fire safety educators, including both

teachers and firefighters. While the payoffs fromthese expenditures will not be especially high int.he beginning, the attitudes and habits instilledshould last a lifetime, thus having a cumulativelygreater effect in future years,

The projected program should result in an an-nual saving of at least 260 lives, 6,500 injuries,and $40 million in property at an annual cost of

$9.6 million: a cost-benefit ratio for property offour dollars return for every dollar invested, notto mention the incalculable savings in lives andinjuries.

We recognize that not everyone will respond toor even be reached by public education, but wefirmly believe that it can contribute significantlyto reduction of fire losses.

Educational efforts must be made to reach those especially prone to fire accidents, such as the poor in cities

114 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

FIRE’S DO’S AND DON’T’S

Educational materials distributed by the Na-tional Fire Protection Association, the NationalSafety Council, the American Insurance As-sociation, and others emphasize the major gapsin everyday knowledge and practice:

Before the Fire Startsl Remove trash and stored items of outlived

usefulness, particularly from the vicinity offurnaces and heaters and from hallways andexit areas.

l Exercise care in the use of electricity. Do notoverload electrical outlets with many appli-ances, use only appropriate fuses, and do nothang electrical cords over nails or run undercarpets, Have cords replaced when they beginto fray or crack, and have electrical workdone by competent electricians.

l Do not store gasoline or flammable cleanersin glass containers, which can break, andavoid storing them inside the home. Do notkeep more flammable liquids on hand thanyou really need.

l To avoid the danger of spontaneous ignition,dispose of rags wet with oil, polishes, or otherflammable liquids in outdoor garbage cans.

l Inspect your home and workplace often forthese and other hazards.

l Plan for escape from every area of the home,discuss escape routes with your family, andactually rehearse escape. Look for exits uponentering restaurants, theaters, and other pub-lic buildings. You might have to find yourway out in thick smoke or darkness.

l Sleep with bedroom doors closed. In theevent of a fire, you will gain precious minutesto escape.

l Learn how to extinguish common fires inearly stages the best way. Roll a person whoseclothing is on fire; use a proper portableextinguisher or even a handful of baking sodato extinguish a fire on your stove.

l Clothing afire is a prelude to tragedy. Buy

garments, such as children’s sleepwear, thatmeet Federal flammability standards as theybecome available, Do not wear (or permitchildren to wear) loose, frilly garments ifthere is any chance at all of accidental contactwith a stove burner or other source of fire.

l Exercise extreme care with smoking mate-rials and matches, major causes of destruc-tive fire. Do not leave these where childrencan reach them.

l Invest in fire extinguishers, escape ladders,and-most important-early warning (smokeor products-of-combustion) fire detector andalarm devices.

After a Fire Startsl If you see, smell, or hear any hint of fire,

evacuate the family immediately, but don’tcompound tragedy by attempting a rescuethrough a gauntlet of flames or thick smoke.Call the fire department as soon as possible.Don’t attempt to extinguish a fire unless it isconfined to a small area and your extinguish-ing equipment is equal to the task.

l If your clothing ignites, roll over and over onthe ground or the floor. Running will justfan the flames. Teach the proper procedureto your children.

l Before opening your door when you suspectfire in another part of the building-as in ahotel, for example-feel the inside of thedoor with the palm of your hand. If it’s hot,don’t open it. Summon aid, if possible, and goto a window and await rescue. If smoke ispouring ‘into the room under the door, stuffbedding or clothing into the crack.

l In smoke, keep low. Gases, smoke, and airheated by fire rise, and the safest area is at thefloor. Cover mouth and nose with a dampcloth, if possible. Don’t assume that clear airin a fire situation is safe. It could contain car-bon monoxide, which, before it kills you,affects judgment, hampering escape.

AMERICA BURNING 115

FIRE PREVENTION

16FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

Of the 8,000 Americans who die in building firesevery year, nine out of ten die at home. Firefight-ers find their bodies beyond the wall of fire orsmoke that blocks escape, sometimes only a fewfeet from a window or door. But often, too, theyare found where they slept: Smoke and toxicgases never gave them a chance.

The nearly 700,000 fires that occur in Ameri-can homes annually produce losses exceeding$874 million. That figure tells only part of thestory. In addition to structural damage, the lossesinclude personal possessions-often acquired afteryears of work and saving, often objects of senti-mental attachment whose value cannot be de-scribed in dollar figures.

The losses will grow. Presently there are about68 million occupied dwelling units in the UnitedStates, and new units are being added at the rateof 2 million a year. Considering this growth andtaking into account the demolition of old units,we can project annual property losses from resi-dence fires approaching $1 billion by 1980-un-less major steps are taken to combat the problem.

Residence fires are not a simple problem but awelter of interacting factors. Combustible interiorfinishes and furnishings, flammable clothing, andpoor interior design from the standpoint of fire

safety contribute to the heavy toll. The ignorance,confusion, or panic in people’s response to firehelps to account for the fatalities. So does the lackof even elementary precautions, such as neversmoking in bed and never leaving children homealone. So, too, does the lack of positive steps, suchas installing early-warning fire detectors or extin-guishing devices and rehearsing with the familyvarious escape plans.

Fire Awareness in the Home

In Chapter 15 we recommended a concerted na-tional effort in fire safety education, including amultiple-media public service advertising cam-paign. Obviously a major emphasis in this broad-based effort should be fire safety in the home.Americans must be educated to sound practicesin the home to prevent fires from starting, andthey must also be educated to react properly whena fire is discovered to save their lives and those oftheir families.

Thousands of Americans die needlessly be-cause they react counterproductively when theydiscover a fire. Many waste precious minutes try-ing to put out a fire before awakening the familyor calling the fire department. Others open hotdoors, attempt a dash through thick smoke, or,

AMERICA BURNING 117

495-792 0 - 73 - 9

in confusion (or under the influence of a toxicgas), fail to think of the most obvious measuresfor escape.

The National Fire Protection Association andthe Fire Marshals Association of North Americahave dev i sed a p rogram ca l l ed Opera t ionE D I T H ( E x i t D r i l l s I n T h e H o m e ) . I n acommunity that adopts Operation EDITH, well-publicized efforts are made to encourage familiesto devise-and rehearse-plans for gett ing thefamily out of the house in the event of a fire. Thepublicity often includes demonstration of suchsteps as installing escape ladders and, when a firehappens, covering the nose and mouth with a wetcloth and crawling along the floor to avoid smoke.The Commission supports the OperationEDITH plan and recommends its acceptanceand implementation both individually andcommunity-wide.

Dwelling Inspections by Fire Departments

Though regrettably few fire departments conductadequate evaluations of their programs, somehave reported as much as 15 to 30 percent re-duction in dwelling fires or life loss as a result ofundertaking a program of home inspections. In1972, Baltimore reported a 47 percent decrease indwelling fires and a 38 percent reduction in liveslost from the year before, and attributed a sig-nificant portion of these reductions to the city’sdwelling inspection program, Not surprisingly, in-spection programs appear to be most effective inneighborhoods where losses are ordinarily high.

Only a portion of the Nation’s 27,500 fire de-partments conduct residential inspections. In theCommission’s survey of fire departments, only 20percent of the 10,000 respondents reported in-specting more than 10 percent of the residences intheir community each year.

In addition to locating fire hazards in the home,residential inspections can serve to heighten citi-zens’ awareness of fire’s threat and to teach themlife-saving precautions and emergency procedures.Inspections can promote respect for the fire de-partment and underscore its interest in savinglives and minimizing losses. In addition, inspec-tions can serve to attract new members to the fireservice.

Most important, residential inspections-usedas educational opportunities as well as for identi-

118 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

fying hazards-could save thousands of lives ayear. The Commission recommends that annualhome inspections be undertaken by every firedepartment in the Nation. Further, Federal fi-nancial assistance to fire jurisdictions should becontingent upon their implementation of effec-tive home fire inspection programs. This recom-mendation is not meant to preclude Federal plan-ning and implementation assistance to help firejurisdictions undertake a program of residentialinspections.

Small and volunteer fire departments that havemanning problems, particularly during daytimehours, should be encouraged to use women volun-teers as residential fire prevention inspectors.Cities that have health educator aides or othercommunity workers in low-income neighborhoods(as described in Chapter 15 ) could utilize theseworkers to supplement the fire department’s resi-dential inspection program,

It is important that inspectors be carefullyselected and trained, They must be able, not onlyto spot hazards, but to deal graciously and effec-tively with the public. In this regard, it would beappropriate for the proposed National FireAcademy to develop model curricula for the train-ing of residential inspectors, Care must also betaken to assure citizens that the inspections areadvisory only and limited to matters of fire safety.(Inspectors will not be welcomed into homeswhen they are suspected of searching for un-licensed dogs or housing code violations.)

To be successful, inspection programs must beevaluated. It is important for the Nation to knowwhat kinds of inspection programs work and whatkinds don’t. At the very least, comparisons shouldbe made between the 12 months’ preceding a newinspection program and the first 12 months fol-lowing, as well as between the last year of a pro-gram and the year after it is dropped.

Home Fire Detection

Most Americans who die in home fires die duringthe nighttime hours. Usually it is smoke, toxicgases, or lack of oxygen-not fire itself--that killsthem.

In countless instances these lives would besaved if the victims were awakened to the pres-ence of a fire in its early stages. There are on themarket approved devices designed to detect smoke

or other products of combustion-not heat alone,which can be detected only in a fire’s advanceds tage-and sound an a la rm. In a Canad ianstudy,’ the investigators concluded that 41 per-cent of recent fire victims in Ontario could havebeen saved if their dwellings had been equippedwith early-warning detectors. Extrapolated to theUnited States, this would be a saving of 2,600lives every year.

1 J. H. McGuire and B. E. Ruscoe, “The Value of aFire Detector in the Home,” Fire Study No. 9 of the Divi-sion of Building Research, National Research Council,Ottawa, December 1962.

In addition to locating fire hazards inthe home, residential inspections can serve toheighten citizens’ awareness of fire’s threat.

The National Fire Protection Association, theDepartment of Housing and Urban Develop-ment, and the International Association of FireChiefs, among others, support the use of early-warning detectors in homes. Those who testifiedto this Commission on fire safety in the home wereunanimous in favoring widespread use of early-warning detectors. At a minimum, most advo-cates feel, there should be an early-warning de-tector on the ceiling near each sleeping area in thehouse. Some believe a system of heat detectors isan adequate substitute, but only if there are manymore of them located throughout the house.There is a consensus that only devices approvedby nationally recognized testing laboratories,such as Underwriters’ Laboratories or FactoryMutual Research Corporation, should be used.The Commission urges Americans to protectthemselves and their families by installing ap-proved early-warning fire detectors and alarmsin their homes.

Fire departments should encourage the instal-lation of approved early-warning fire detectors inthe course of their residential inspections. In thecourse of subsequent inspections, they shouldthen check to see that the devices are in workingorder.

Representatives of numerous insurance com-panies have expressed to the Commission the de-sire to increase their efforts to reduce life andproperty losses and injuries by fire. EncouragingAmericans to provide fire protection in theirhomes would be a major contribution, and theCommission recommends that the insurance in-dustry develop incentives for policyholders to in-stall approved early-warning fire detectors intheir residences.

There could also be tax incentives. The Com-mission urges Congress to consider amending theInternal Revenue Code to permit reasonable de-ductions from income tax for the cost of in-stalling approved detection and alarm systemsin homes. Such a provision would not only offer afinancial incentive but would serve to draw pub-lic attention to the importance of fire safety in thehome.

Public awareness of the value of early-warningfire detectors would be enhanced if, as we recom-mended in Chapter 11, all of the Nation’s modelcodes would specify at least a single-station early-

AMERICA BURNING 119

warning detector outside sleeping areas in everydwelling unit.

Here and there fire detection systems have be-come legal requirements for residences. Since1958, Quincy, Mass., has required fire detectionand alarm devices in all new single-family dwell-ings. The Village of Bayside, Wis., has a similarordinance, and also requires that occupants per-form maintenance checks on the detection systemsand report on a standard form to the chief of pub-lic safety annually or face a $200 fine. In Ohio,the State fire code now requires a single-stationfire detector in all new one-, two-, and three-family dwellings. At the Federal level, the De-partment of Housing and Urban Developmentrequires early-warning fire detectors in multiple-family dwellings and care facilities, such as hos-pitals and nursing homes, insured or assisted bythe Department. HUD recently extended the re-quirement to insured or assisted one- and two-family dwellings.

The 18,000 mobile homes that HUD providedto Pennsylvania’s victims of Hurricane Agnes in1972 were equipped with early-warning detectorsand are serving as a testing ground for the de-vices. The National Bureau of Standards is collect-ing data on the experience with these detectors toevaluate their performance (including any tend-ency of causes other than fire to activate thealarm) and to aid in the development of installa-tion and maintenance requirements.

Certainly the technology of early-warning de-tectors can be improved, and with a substantialmarket assured, the costs of these devices can bebrought within the reach of low-income families.Manufacturers are working toward improve-ments in both directions, and their efforts arelikely to accelerate when the devices “catch on.”The National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration, the National Science Foundation, andthe National Bureau of Standards are supportingwork to improve the detectors. All of these effortsdeserve coordination, and the Commission rec-ommends that the proposed United States FireAdministration monitor the progress of researchand development on early-warning detection sys-tems in both industry and Government and pro-vide additional support for research and devel-opment where it is needed. Long-term studiesmight investigate the possibility of coupling early-

120 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

warning detection with household commodities,such as electrical wiring or telephones, or withsuch commonly used objects as lamps or lightbulbs.

In addition to on-premises detectors andalarms, another avenue of exploration is the cou-pling of fire detection with cable television. TheFederal Communications Commission requirescommercial suppliers of cable TV to provide thecapability to transmit a signal “upstream” fromthe subscriber as well as “downstream” from thetransmitter. Several cities, including Pensacola(Florida), Atlanta, and a suburb of Chicago, areexperimenting with means of transmitting firealarms automatically by cable to summon aid.

Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems

Where early-warning detectors and automaticextinguishing systems are used in combination,the protection to lives and property is enhancedgreatly over that afforded by detectors alone.Automatic sprinklers are expensive; while theyare feasible for high-rise and other large build-ings, they are too costly for installation in theaverage home. Research and development areneeded toward automatic extinguishing systemsthat will be cheap, aesthetically acceptable, andadaptable to existing homes as well as new con-struction. The Commission recommends that theProposed U.S. Fire Administration support thedevelopment of the necessary technology for im-proved automatic extinguishing systems thatwould find ready acceptance by Americans in allkinds of dwelling units.

Automatic extinguishing systems in residenceswould not only save lives and reduce direct lossesfrom fire, but would also reduce other expensesto the Nation, such as the costs of treating burnand smoke injuries, insurance costs (both pre-miums and payouts), and the costs of maintain-ing fire departments. The developers of DisneyWorld in Florida, who have installed sprinklersystems in residential buildings such as hotels andapartments (and smoke detectors in single-familydwellings), report that there have been savings ininsurance rates and, just as important, savings inthe costs of maintaining fire departments.

Protection of Mobile Homes

Mobile homes possess some special fire danger

EARLY-WARNING (SMOKE) ANDHEAT DETECTORS

“Three types of fire detectors are most com-monly used in this country. These are knownby the generic terms as heat detectors, smokedetectors, and flame detectors. Only heat andsmoke detectors appear to have application tothe household fire detection system. Heat detec-tors may be of the type that sense temperatureof the environment, rate of rise of the environ-ment temperature, or combinations of these.Smoke detectors of two different types are avail-able. Optical detectors are designed to sense thescattering of a light beam by smoke par-t i c l e s ; combustion products detectorsare designed to detect the presence of particu-late products of combustion by electricalm e a n s . , Each detector type has advan-tages and disadvantages associated with anypart icular application. .

“In the late 1950’s, self-contained non-electri-cal fire alarm units were being sold door-to-door. A unit of this type consisted of a heatdetector.... a h o r n o r b e l l t o s o u n d t h ealarm, and a source of stored energy.... Because these units respond only to a tempera-ture rise, they are intended for use in areaswhere a fire producing a great deal of heat islikely to occur, such as near a furnace, but theyhave also been employed throughout otherrooms in a home. Hard sell techniques wereemployed in marketing these units. . . .

“In order to be of value in providing lifesafety, a fire detection system must make pro-vision for detecting a small smoldering fire soonenough that alarm can be given and the build-ing evacuated before untenable smoke condi-tions are reached. In addition, but of less rela-tive importance, the fire detection system oughtto be capable of early detection of rapidly de-veloping hot fires.

“Smoke detectors of the photoelectric andionization types provide means for detectingsmoke from either type of fire; and the mostcritical factor in determining the speed of re-sponse is the location of the detector. Heatdetectors, on the other hand, provide earlywarning of hot fires in their immediate areaonly. . .

“The most favorable locations for smokedetectors which protect the bedroom area,either alone or in conjunction with detectorslocated throughout the house, depend of courseon the building configuration. In general, thesmoke detectors should be located so that smokefrom any fire which originates outside of thebedroom area must pass over the smoke detec-tor before entering the bedrooms.”----From testimony to the Commission (Oct. 4,

1972) of William J. Christian, consultingengineer, Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc.

AMERICA BURNING 121

characteristics. Among these are their small size,close proximity of heaters and kitchens to sleepingareas, the concentration of combustible materials,lack of adequate escape doors in many cases, anda higher combustibility of interior finishes than inmost site-built homes. Mobile homes are the fast-est-burning of all homes.

More than seven million Americans live inmobile homes, and mobile homes currently ac-count for 95 percent of homes sold for under$15,000. Mobile homes presently are being manu-factured at a rate well exceeding 500,000 per year.

While the incidence of fire in mobile homes isabout the same or less than in conventional homes,data indicate, results are often more serious whena fire occurs. The office of the State Fire Marshalof Oregon has compiled some of the most com-plete records available on fire losses in mobilehomes. They have reported, from data coveringthe period 1965 through 1971:

l The ratio of fatalities per fire in mobile homes is2.74 times greater than for standard dwellings;

l The loss-to-value ratio per fire in mobile homesis 3.84 times greater than standard dwellings;

l Average mobile home fire losses are greaterthan average losses in standard dwellings by aratio of 1.62 to 1 ($1,477 per fire average to$909 average for standard dwellings).

A number of individuals and organizationshave pursued improvements in mobile homesafety. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., of Florida, in-troduced in 1972 the first national mobile homesafety act. Federal action to protect owners ofmobile homes is justified, since the Federal Gov-ernment buys mobile homes for disaster victimsand other uses and, through the Federal HousingAdministration, provides mortgage insurance fora limited but growing number of mobile homes.

In addition, the National Fire Protection Asso-ciation has devised a standard, NFPA 501B,which has been approved by the American Na-tional Standards Institute for the design and con-struction of mobile homes to provide fire safety.This standard has been criticized as not stringentenough; for example, there are no interior finishrequirements for molding, doors, trim, cabinets,and splash panels, all of which can contribute tothe rapid spread of fire. Nor are early-warningfire detectors required. The Commission recom-mends that the National Fire Protection Asso-

122 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

Many deaths from fires in the home can be attributed to ignorance of how to react and escape when a fire happens.

AMERICA BURNING 123

One important measure for averting tragedyis to rehearse, with all members of the family,plans for escaping various kinds of fires.

124 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

ciation and the American National StandardsInstitute jointly review the Standard for MobileHomes and seek to strengthen it, particularly insuch areas as interior finish materials and firedetection.

The NFPA/ANSI standard is advisory only,and many State and local jurisdictions have failedto enact a code for mobile homes equivalent tothat standard. The Commission recommendsthat all political jurisdictions require compli-ance with NFPA/ANSI standard for mobilehomes together with additional requirements forearly-warning fire detectors and improved fireresistance of materials. These requirements willbe effective only if they are enforced adequately-through inspection both at the point of manu-facture and the final site of each mobile home.

Because of zoning requirements, mobile homeparks are frequently located outside of cities and,hence, far from fire departments and adequatewater supplies. This means that the parks them-selves must provide safeguards against destructivefire, as the National Fire Protection Associationhas recognized in its Standard on Mobile HomeParks (NFPA 501A). The Commission recom-mends that State and local jurisdictions adoptthe NFPA Standard on Mobile Home Parks asa minimum mode of protection for the residentsof these parks.

Citizens’ Responsibilities

There are millions of Americans who investheavily in chain locks and burglar alarms, whokeep guns in their homes and under store countersto supplement the protection they get from policedepartments. Very few of these Americans havepaused to consider the wisdom of providing theirown fire protection.

Consistent with the prevailing American atti-tude toward fire protection in the home, theburden of protecting lives and property in resi-dential fires is borne overwhelmingly by the pub-lic, in the form of fire departments. The inade-quacy of this reliance is conveyed by a singleword: time. It takes time to discover a fire, timeto notify the fire department, time for the firedepartment to reach the scene, and time for fire-fighters to bring the fire under control. Everypassing second weighs the odds more heavily infavor of the fire and against the victims.

The attitude of the Japanese, who for cen-turies built their homes of very flammable mate-rials, contrasts sharply. There, a destructive firedisgraces the person who allows it to happen;once upon a time, it was sufficient cause for cru-cifixion. A Japanese proverb translates: “There isno one who fails to get excited when the neigh-bor’s house is on fire.” That is, distant troublesdo not interest people; it is only when a problemcomes close to home that they are willing to dosomething.

Before Americans will take the steps to protectthemselves and their families, the threat of firemust be brought “close to home.” Thus, a needunderlying many others is to educate Americansto recognize the dangerous enemy they have indestructive fire.

If fire consciousness could be instilled in Ameri-cans, then one could envision the day when everyAmerican home will have its own automatic firedepartment: an alarm that rescues the family andautomatically activates the extinguishers that putout the fire. Then thousands of lives would besaved every year, millions of dollars of the Na-tion’s resources would be saved from ruin, hospi-tals could be emptied of beds for burn and smokeinjury patients, fire departments could be paredto a fraction of their present size, and fire insur-ance might he as cheap as dog licenses.

Other measures for averting tragedy includeusing and storing flammable liquidsaway from potential sources of ignition.

AMERICA BURNING 125

FIRE PREVENTION

17FIRE SAFETY FOR THE

YOUNG, OLD, AND INFIRMThere are millions of Americans against whomfire holds heavy odds. These are people withlimited capacities-the very young, the old, thephysically and mentally handicapped. Lackingthe ability to cope adequately with fire accidents,these Americans deserve protective watchfulnessfrom their families-that is, when they are withtheir families. When they congregate with peers ofsimilar disabilities, a fire accident can threatenmany lives. The situation is ripe for major trage-dies in nursery schools, day care centers, homesfor the physically or mentally retarded, and homesfor the elderly.

In many such institutions, a combination ofbuilt-in fire protection and attentive staff has keptfire accidents under control, But there are poign-ant exceptions. In February of 1972, six chil-dren died in an apartment in Chicago that hadbeen licensed by the State of Illinois as a day carecenter. At the time of the fire, the operators ofthe day care center had won two delays of acourt case involving code violations found by theChicago building department. Many such pro-grams for preschool children are not subject tostrict building code requirements because theyare located in private homes, churches, or other

buildings not designed for the purpose of childcare.

The National Fire Protection Association hasamended its Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) togovern construction, exit facilities, and fire de-tection systems in facilities for groups of pre-school children in day care centers, group daycare homes, and family day care homes. In-cluded are provisions for early-warning fire detec-tion devices where children sleep. The Depart-ment of Health, Education, and Welfare hasurged the States to adopt these provisions aslicensing requirements for these facilities. TheCommission strongly endorses these new pro-visions of the Life Safety Code for child daycare centers and recommends that they beadopted and enforced immediately by all theStates as a minimum requirement for licensingof such facilities.

Among fire’s victims, one large group standsout as a special and growing concern: the oc-cupants of nursing homes and homes for theelderly. Annually, 3,500 to 4,000 fires break outin these facilities. During the 20 years from 1951to 1970, 496 residents of facilities for the ageddied in multiple-death fires (those killing three

AMERICA BURNING 127

or more). No one keeps a national record ofsingle-fatality fires in nursing homes, but by con-servative estimate the toll is 500 persons a year.

According to Government and industry esti-mates, about one million older Americans live in23,000 nursing homes and other care facilitiesacross the Nation. Most of these facilities are li-censed by their respective States and hence maybe regulated, to some degree, concerning firesafety. About 14,000 of these are subject to Fed-eral certification (under Medicare and Medicaidprograms) and must comply with the 1967edition of the Life Safety Code of the NationalFire Protection Association.

Perhaps another million elderly Americans livein “housing for the elderly” insured or assistedby the Department of Housing and Urban De-velopment and thus subject to some fire safetyrequirements, though not as stringent as theycould be.

Untold hundreds of thousands of older Ameri-cans live in nursing homes that are not State-regulated (usually because they dispense no nurs-ing services) and in unregulated boarding houses,hotels, and other room-and-board facilities thatcater mostly to the elderly.

Thus, fire protection for the elderly ranges fromexcellent to totally inadequate and, on balance,is far less than senior citizens deserve. It is ablemish on the American conscience that thosewho contributed to our prosperity are allowedto live their retiring years where even minimalfire safeguards are absent. The problem of firesafety in special housing for the elderly deservesattention, with growing urgency each passing day.The elderly population is expanding, as is the por-tion of Americans living out their years in nursinghomes and housing for the elderly.’ A strongerFederal role in attacking the problem is justified,since many homes for the elderly receive assist-ance from HUD or old age assistance payments.

Fire-resistive building construction, we shouldadd, is not a panacea. In November of 1972, 10people died of smoke inhalation in an Atlantafire in a new 1l-story apartment house that cost$3.5 million to build. It appeared, in general, to

‘The over-65 group is expected to increase 30 percentby 1985, while the total population will grow by only18 percent. In the 6 years from 1963 to 1969, whilethe elderly population grew by 21 percent, the numberin nursing homes increased by two-thirds.

meet the appropriate provisions of Atlanta’sbuilding code, the NFPA Life Safety Code, andthe standards of the Department of Housing andUrban Development for housing for the elderly.

Moreover, many safeguards meant to avertmultiple-death fires by limiting the spread of fireand smoke do not prevent the accidents thatcause single deaths. Safeguard which only pre-vent multiple deaths cannot be considered ade-quate to the needs of the elderly.

It is not difficult to see why the elderly areespecially prone to tragic fire accidents. Manylack the physical coordination to handle matches,cigarettes, or hot appliances safely. Others,mentally impaired or despondent, set fires delib-erately. When a fire occurs, physical or mentalimpairment can hamper the chances of escape.As firefighters have discovered over and over,many elderly patients are reluctant to leave theroom that houses their few worldly possessions.Compounding the problem of fires in nursinghomes is the fact that many homes are sparselystaffed, especially during the nighttime hours.

Better Protection is Needed

The National Fire Protection Association recentlyrevised the Life Safety Code and, in so doing,gave added attention to the problem of single-death fires. Stricter flammability requirementshave been imposed on gowns, bedding, cubiclecurtains, and draperies. Early-warning detectorsarc recommended requirements for all new nurs-ing homes, hospitals, and ocher care facilities. Inrecognition that building alterations and extin-guishing systems are expensive, the fire protectionstandard is flexible, permitting reduction in com-partmentation requirements if automatic sprin-klers are instal led or deleting the sprinklerrequirements where compartmentation standardsare met in fire-resistive and protected non-com-bustible buildings.

The Department of Housing and Urban Devel-opment, too, has revised its standards for institu-tional and residential occupancies for the elderly,to require more extensive, yet not complete, cov-erage by automatic sprinklers and early-warningdetectors.

State requirements vary widely. Since 1967,Massachusetts, which has some of the moststringent standards, has required that all new and

128 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE YOUNG, OLD, AND INFIRM

existing facilities for the aged (except those strictlyproviding housing for the elderly) be equippedwith automatic sprinklers if they have three ormore residents. On the other hand, there are sevenStates with no sprinkler requirements of any kind.

Reliable estimates place the cost of automaticsprinkler systems between $0.65 and $1.25 persquare foot, depending on the difficulty of in-stallation. While this is roughly similar to the

cost of carpeting, we recognize that the costcould be burdensome to many owners of facili-ties for the aged, particularly if the owners mustalso invest in early-warning detectors. Such fa-cilities are an expanding need in our society,hence any increase in financial burdens must becarefully weighed against its possible effect ofdiscouraging private enterprise to provide thesefacilities, Yet the fire safety of the elderly should

Lack of mobility or physical coordination compounds the problem of rescuing nursing home patients from a fire.

AMERICA BURNING 129

yield to no compromise. The Commission rec-ommends that early-warning detectors andtotal automatic sprinkler protection or othersuitable automatic extinguishing systems berequired in all facilities for the care and hous-ing of the elderly.

The recommendation applies to residences forthe elderly as well as to care facilities. Some finan-cial incentives may be necessary. Federally guar-anteed low-interest loans, tax incentives such asaccelerated depreciation and exclusion of fire ex-tinguishing systems from tax assessments, reducedfire insurance premiums, and concessions in struc-tural fire protection requirements would offerdesirable inducements to builders and owners.

In putting forth this recommendation, theCommission recognizes that it exceeds standardsof the NFPA Life Safety Code at a time whenFederal agencies and many States still lag behindcurrent provisions of the code. We believe theFederal agencies and States should be makingevery effort to keep up with changes in theNFPA standards. The Commission recommendsto the Federal agencies and the States that theyestablish mechanisms for annual review andrapid upgrading of their fire safety requirementsfor facilities for the aged and infirm, to a levelno less stringent than the current NFPA LifeSafety Code.

It is appropriate to pause and note here thatthe recommendations we have thus far put forthin this chapter, and the ones that are to follow,could apply equally well to other kinds of facili-ties for the infirm and handicapped in our society.We have focused on nursing homes and housingfor the elderly because these have been a majorsource of tragic fires. But other kinds of institu-tions, such as homes for the physically or mentallyhandicapped, have conditions very similar tothose of facilities for the aged. Thus, it wouldbe appropriate for Federal and State authoritiesalso to review periodically the extent of coverageprovided by their fire safety regulations-that is,to include various kinds of institutions for thehandicapped as well as facilities for the elderly.

The limited capabili t ies of the physicallyhandicapped and the elderly to escape from firein institutions and public buildings need specialattention. A deaf person cannot hear a fire alarmbell. A blind person cannot see an exit sign.

The crippled person in a wheelchair needs readyaccess to a safe refuge from fire that does notrequire the USC of stairs or elevators. Audible andvisual fire alarms, wide doorways, and ramps aresome of the needs. The Commission recommendsthat the special needs of the physically handi-capped and elderly in institutions, special hous-ing, and public buildings be incorporated intoall fire safetey standards and codes.

No standards are useful, of course, if they arenot enforced. The Commission recommends thatthe States provide for periodic inspection offacilities for the aged and infirm, either by theState’s fire marshal’s office or by local fire de-partments, and also require approval of plansfor new facilities and inspection by a desig-nated authority during and after construction.

Lowering the amount of combustibles in nurs-ing homes-including interior finishes, furnish-ings, and fabrics-is a matter of utmost priority.Here the experience of the Veterans Administra-

Though set afire simultaneously, theflame-resistant pajamas burn farmore slowly than standard cotton pajamas.

130 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE YOUNG, OLD), AND INFIRM

tion is instructive. The VA is furnishing everyone of the 80,000 patients in its hospitals withpajamas made of a flame-resistant cloth. Even-tually all bath robes will be of this material, andthe VA is evaluating the material for possible usein bedding. While the fire-resistant material usedis four times as expensive as cotton, it lasts 10 to 15times longer. The garments have been readily ac-cepted by patients; while the 1 percent of patientswho are risks to themselves (most because of theirsmoking habits) are required to wear fire-resistantclothing, few of the others reject the garments.

Among the elderly in nursing homes, accept-ance of uniform garments is less likely. Manyhave developed sentimental attachment to theirown clothing and to the individuality it givesthem. It would still be appropriate, however, torequire fire-resistant clothing on patients proneto fire accidents. Other fabrics in nursinghomes, such as bedding and draperies, shouldmeet high standards of non-flammability, asshould furnishings and interior finishes. TheCommission recommends that the NationalBureau of Standards develop standards for theflammability of fabric materials commonlyused in nursing homes with a view to providingthe highest level of fire resistance compatiblewith the state-of-the-art and reasonable costs.

Other measures can be taken to reduce the lifelosses from fires in nursing homes. Specially pro-tected, supervised areas can be set aside forsmokers. Smoking can be prohibited in bedrooms

unless an attendant is present.State and local governments can regulate the

location of nursing homes-prohibiting them atgreat distances from fire departments. They canrequire that alarm systems be tied directly andautomatically to the local fire departments. TheCommission recommends that political subdivi-sions regulate the location of nursing homes andhousing for the elderly and require that firealarm systems be tied directly and automaticallyto the local fire department.

The Department of Health, Education, andWelfare, and other governmental bodies whichinspect Medicare and Medicaid institutions, canaid local fire departments by transmitting theirfindings relating to fire and life safety to thedepartments.

Finally, loss of life can be reduced through theeducation of staff, residents, and families of resi-dents on fire safety. It is particularly important totrain staff how to handle a fire emergency, and inChapter 15 we recommended that the proposedUnited States Fire Administration develop train-ing aids for just this purpose.

An incident that happened in Virginia severalyears ago underscores the importance of educa-tion for all who enter nursing home doors. Afterreturning home from visiting an elderly relative,a man called the nursing home to confess that hehad given forbidden matches to the relative. Thecall was too late. The patient had already burnedto death.

Multiple-death tragedies could be averted if all nursing homes were required to have built-in fire protection.

AMERICA BURNING 131

PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE

18RESEARCH FOR

TOMORROW’S FIRE PROBLEMIn both the public and private sectors, the Nationspends about $105 million annually on researchand development related to fire (see AppendixVII). It would be difficult to define an ade-quate level of investment against which thisfigure could be compared. But evidence mar-shaled earlier in this report of laggard progressin the technology of firefighting, the treatment ofburn and smoke victims, and fire protection ofthe built environment suggests that the Nation isseriously under-investing in fire-related research.

Much of the research is devoted to narrow-and short-term goals. Industrial research anddevelopment, for example, is largely devoted toensuring that materials and products meet exist-ing codes rather than more ambitious standardsof fire safety. Of the $27 million spent on fire re-search and development by the Federal Govern-ment, about $18 million is directed to the specificmissions of the sponsoring agencies-for example,in the Atomic Energy Commission, to the pre-vention and control of fires in nuclear reactorfacilities.

Comparatively little has been done in therealm of basic research and other research inwhich, if a technological improvement is a possi-bility, it is a long-term payoff. As far back as 1959,

the Committee on Fire Research of the NationalResearch Council noted a dearth of basic researchdirected toward a fundamental understanding ofthe phenomena of ignition, fire growth, and firespread. The Committee recommended a “na-tional program emphasizing those areas not ade-quately covered by current efforts of military andcivil agencies.” During the 1960’s, most of thebasic research on fire pertained to forest fires,since the forest environment was easier to dealwith and properly preceded attention to the morecomplex environment of urban fires. By 1969,the Committee on Fire Research was able to re-port “small but significant” progress in basic fireresearch.

In the mid-1960’s, research interest in the builtenvironment was spurred by new Federal lawsdealing with fire safety, in particular with certainfabrics and the materials in aircraft interiors. Anexpanding role for the Federal Government wasdefined when the Fire Research and Safety Actof 1968 authorized the National Bureau of Stand-ards to undertake a more comprehensive researchprogram. When the National Science Foundationestablished its Research Applied to NationalNeeds program in 1971, it opened the way tomore extensive fire research.

AMERICA BURNING 133

Some notable achievements have been made.For example, some of the reactions that takeplace in a flame are now understood, which opensthe way to understanding how the addition ofchemicals might inhibit flames. The basic mecha-nisms of heat radiation are understood almost tothe point where the distances at which other fuelsin a room will ignite by the radiative energy froma fire can be predicted. In the realm of techno-logical improvements, additives for water havebeen developed which reduce friction in a hose.Other additives make water “light” so that itfloats on top of liquid fuels and smothers flames.

Some Areas for Exploration

There is much to be done in the broad field offire research. We have indicated important areasfor specific research throughout the report.

One basic need is to strengthen this groundingof knowledge about fire in a body of scientificand engineering theory, so that real-world prob-lems can be dealt with through predictive analy-ses. The development and testing of new materialsand assemblies, the teaching of fire protection,the creation of new architectural designs, theengineering design of more effective fire controlsystems, and the development of fire preventionprograms could be greatly expanded and im-proved if more fundamental understanding offire behavior were available.

Human Behavior. Because so many fires aredue to human carelessness, and because so manypeople react counterproductively when a fire oc-curs, the Commission has placed great emphasison education as a means of reducing the Nation’sfire losses. But “carelessness” blankets a range ofbehavior from relative innocence and helpless-ness to subconscious attention-getting or self-destructiveness. Effective educational efforts willdepend on a much firmer knowledge of whypeople cause fires than now exists. Moreover,those efforts will require studies of what kindsof fire safety messages work--that is, which kindsof presentations alter human behavior to reducefire accidents and their consequences-ratherthan cause citizens to “tune out” (as can happenif the messages are too scary), or blunt their sensi-tivity through too much repetition.

Likewise, “arson” covers behavior from pyro-mania to fire-setting motivated by greed. Better

134 RESEARCH FOR TOMORROW’S FIRE PROBLEM.

understanding of this range of behavior wouldgreatly aid the apprehension of arsonists, thesearch for safeguards against arson, and thesearch for alternatives-that is, less destructiveoutlets for the mentally sick arsonist, and attrac-tive economic alternatives for those who deliber-ately set fire to their own property.

Fire dynamics. To the extent that materialsin the built environment are controlled at all,they are controlled by voluntary standards andbuilding codes, each of which can be no betterthan the test methods specified for measuring fireperformance. Unfortunately, present test methodsoften yield numbers that tell little more than howmaterials or structures behave in idealized testconfigurations. Actual fire performance in abuilding depends critically on such factors asphysical layout, interactions between walls, floors,and ceilings, fuel loads, and the presence of com-plicating components such as air conditioningducts. Thus there is a need for research towardthe development of test methods that more accu-rately predict real-world fire performance.

Smoke and toxic gases. The physiologicaleffects of smoke inhalation and tolerance limitsare not known adequately. Neither is muchknown about the chemical nature of combustionproducts, nor how smoke and gases are influencedby combustion conditions, such as temperatureand turbulence. Smoke and toxic gases are im-portant hazards, and a better understanding oftheir chemical and physical nature, how they aregenerated, how they move with lethal effect forgreat distances through a building, and theirphysiological effects would provide a foundationof knowledge needed for the development of testmethods, standards, and countermeasures.

Automatic detection. Of basic importance isfinding the best harbinger of fire. Three consider-ations enter in: reliable early warning, low cost,and a triggering mechanism that will not be acti-vated by causes other than fire. The best early-warning detectors now on the market use opticaldetectors to sense smoke or electrical means todetect the particulate products of combustion.Largely as a result of contracts from the NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, a num-ber of industrial and Government laboratoriesare investigating carbon monoxide detection byspectroscopic techniques. Another possible ap-

proach is detection of microscopic particulates,called aerosols, which are known to be producedin copious quantities by combustion, but whichthemselves are little understood.

Additional basic knowledge is needed on howfast detectors must react, what they must be sen-sitive to, and how they should be placed to bemaximally effective.

Fire services. As we discussed in detail inChapter 7, there is room for improvement in thetechnology of every aspect of firefighting: in themeans by which fire departments are notified offires, in the ways in which men and equipmentare dispatched, in firefighters’ personal equip-ment, in the trucks and hoses and suppressionagents used to put out fires.

State and local pilot programs. To ensure theprompt introduction of research results, a majoreffort in translating research into operationalpractice is essential. We envision pilot programsat the State and local level providing the oppor-

tunity for field testing of new research ideas inthe real world, serving as a mechanism for dem-onstrating the practicality of technological inno-vations to the fire services, and providing train-ing to assist the fire services in their use.

Goals for Research

Most discussions about fire research focus onparticular research problems, rather than onlarger questions of what the research can accom-plish. Yet for new initiatives in fire research to bejustified, the potentials of fire research ought tobe clearly stated.

One need only consider the chief causes of firelosses-carelessness and shortcomings of design-to realize that losses could be significantly reducedthrough research. The Nat iona l Bureau ofStandards has suggested that a 50 percent reduc-tion in all categories of losses is possible. A moredetailed and ambitious set of goals for researchwould include the following:

When their products can cause fire to spread rapidly, manufacturers should conduct research to make them safer.

AMERICA BURNING 135

l Reduce fires clue to human behavior by 80percent;

l Increase in-hospital survival of burn patientsby 50 percent through improved burn care;

l Decrease firefighter injuries by 50 percentthrough better personal protective equipment;

l Eliminate 90 percent of all large property lossesthrough improvements in building design;

l Reduce fire injuries and fatalities at the acci-dent site by 80 percent through safe fabrics,design of products, detection devices, and on-the-scene care;

l Increase the fire control capability of fire de-partments by 50 percent by faster response andmore effective extinguishing methods.These are long-term goals which, in the absence

of major breakthroughs or absence of implemen-tation, might never be attained. But they areguideposts for action. It is relevant to note that ifthe United States had undertaken its space pro-gram with the idea “We might get to the moon”instead of “We will land men on the moon,” thatevent would probably still lie far in the future.

The Federal Role in Research

With annual allocations of about $27 million,the Federal Government accounts for one-fourthof the Nation’s expenditures on research relatedto fire. There are kinds of research it would beinappropriate for the Federal Government toundertake. The development of specific productsshould remain in the private sector, as should fireendurance testing of materials and products.

It is appropriate for the Federal Governmentto undertake research that could lead to new prod-ucts in the long run, especially when industry canonly afford modest research for gradual refine-ment of its products. Studies on incentives andharriers to innovation, now under way in the Na-tional Science Foundation and the National Bu-reau of Standards, may lead to strategies ofgovernment-industry cooperation that could shiftto industry a greater share of the research towardlong-term improvements. How to encourage in-novation among the manufacturers of firefightingand related equipment would be one of themajor concerns of the proposed ‘United StatesFire Administration.

Many areas of research will continue to liebeyond the interest of profit-seeking organizations

and, hence, more likely sponsored by nonprofitfoundations, universities, or the Federal Govern-ment. This includes exploratory research intohighly unconventional solutions for which therisks of arriving at a dead end are too great forindustry to undertake. It includes basic medicalresearch several steps removed from any newpharmaceutical or other therapeutic develop-ment. It includes research to serve the Govern-ment’s own nonprofit ends, such as the pilotstudies that should accompany the developmentof new programs in fire safety education.

The Federal Government has developed strongprograms in basic and highly exploratory re-search concerning fire, notably in the NationalBureau of Standards, the National ScienceFoundation, and the Nat iona l Ins t i tu tes o fHealth. Their programs fill important voids leftby research in the private sector. Desirable as itmight be from the standpoint of economizing,it is not likely that the private sector could fillthe gaps if the programs were diminished in anyway. The Commission recommends that theFederal Government retain and strengthen itsprograms of fire research for which no non-governmental alternatives exist. This is not tosay that all federally sponsored research should bedone “in-house.” Throughout the academic andtechnological communities there are excellent re-search resources, and the turning away of researchfrom defense and aerospace programs provides agreat source of expertise to be tapped.

There ought to be a clear set of priorities infederally sponsored research. Presently there isno group in the Federal Government looking atthe total picture of fire research needs-includingthe physics and chemistry of fire, as well as medi-cal, behavioral, and technological problems-andadvising the budgetmakers on what programs de-serve what level of support. This is an im-portant function which the proposed U.S. FireAdministration would perform. As it is now, everyagency’s research program is, in effect, competingfor dollars with every other fire research program.

Details of how the U.S. Fire Administrationwould carry out this function are discussed in thenext chapter. Certain important aspects deservemention here. First, the U.S. Fire Administrationwould have a system of data-collecting whichwould serve to guide research priorities. The de-

136 RESEARCH FOR TOMORROW’S FIRE PROBLEM

tailed information it gathered on firefighter in-juries, for example, would indicate which injurieshappen most often and deserve the most attention,as it would also indicate what must be changedto reduce those injuries.

Second, the U.S. Fire Administration wouldbe an important clearinghouse of information, forboth the public and private sectors. Thus it wouldknow what research industry was pursuing, andit would also know what research problems arenot being pursued and possibly deserve Federalattention. It would have the important functionof disseminating research information to fire re-searchers everywhere, so that investigators couldbenefit quickly from the accomplishments of theircolleagues and avoid duplicating each other’swork. In these ways would the entire Nation’sefforts in fire research be strengthened.

In the next chapter we also discuss the alloca-tion of Federal resources for various purposes, in-cluding research. That analysis calls for a near-doubling of the Federal research effort; specifi-cally, the Commission recommends that theFederal budget for research connected with firebe increased by $26 million. Our recommenda-tion is based not solely on what federally spon-sored research could accomplish in the reductionof fire losses, but also on the importance of re-search relative to other kinds of efforts to reducelosses.

Not a Federal Responsibility Alone

As important as Federal research is for combat-ing the Nation’s fire problems, the responsibilityis not solely the Government’s

Social and legal responsibilities are borne bythe private sector as well. For example, car manu-facturers are held responsible for defects in designor assembly that can lead to accidents. They arenot held accountable, of course, for the stupid orcareless actions of drivers. By the same token, themanufacturers of materials that go into the builtenvironment are not responsible for the carelessactions that lead to fire accidents. But what hap-pens to those materials as a fire progresses canmake the difference between a small loss and ahuge one, indeed between life and death. To that

extent do manufacturers share in the obligationto make the built environment fire-safe.

The Government can require that manufac-turers make materials fire-safe, as it has done withcertain fabrics and as we have recommendedthat the Consumer Product Safety Commissiondo for a whole range of materials and products.But industry should accept its responsibilities inthe absence of coercion. Accordingly, the Com-mission recommends that associations of mate-rial and product manufacturers encourage theirmember companies to sponsor research directedtoward improving the fire safety of the builtenvironment.

People tend to think of research as an expend-able luxury, an activity that can be cut off whentoday’s problems, rather than tomorrow’s, cry outfor solution and total consumption of monetaryresources. Behind this view there sometimes liesresentment that, in supporting research, societypays well-educated men and women to do whatthey enjoy doing, purely for their own satisfaction.

The view is extremely shortsighted. Many oftoday’s problems could be quickly solved-oraverted altogether-if yesterday there had beenan adequate investment in research. For manyyears there was an under-investment in researchto develop pollution-free automobile engines, andnow the Nation is forced to a headlong rush, ex-pensive and laden with problems, to develop thoseengines in time to meet Federal deadlines.

Likewise, problems for tomorrow can be stavedoff through adequate investments in research to-day. There is hope of arresting the so-called energycrisis through research on alternative, untappedsources of energy.

Through progress in medicine, automobile de-sign, and pollution control, Americans are fightingagainst their destroyers. Some day they willawaken to the realization that they need not ac-cept destructive fire passively. Research must goforward now so that, when that day arrives, effec-tive countermeasures against fire will be ready.Indeed, there are already many Americans whodo not accept destructive fire passively. Theywould have welcomed tomorrow’s research ac-complishments many years ago.

AMERICA BURNING 137

PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE

19FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

Time and again this report has made evident theneed for Federal initiatives to help combat theNation’s fire problem, and also for coordination tostrengthen programs now scattered among Fed-eral agencies. These considerations point to anoverriding need : a permanent Federal agencyspecifically concerned with fire.

Emphatically, what is not needed is a Federalbureaucracy assuming responsibilities that shouldbe retained by State and local jurisdictions. Fireprevention, fire suppression, and public educationon fire safety should remain primarily responsi-bilities of local governments, where familiarityexists with local conditions and the peoplebeing served. Communities have already investedheavily in manpower and equipment for fire pro-tection, in recognition that it is a local responsi-bility. Likewise, regulatory responsibilities for fireprevention and code enforcement should remainat State and local levels. Codes and regulationsmust respond to changes in the built environment,and past experience illustrates that State and localgovernments are likely to be more dynamic andresponsive to changing needs for different juris-dictions than a single Federal regulatory agency.

The Federal Government can help, however, inbeing a national advocate of fire protection andin providing better training and financial assist-

ance-so that State and local governments andprivate enterprise can more effectively reducedeaths, injuries, and property losses from fire.Paramount among the objectives is to assist localfire services to improve their effectiveness andbroaden their responsibilities from primarily firesuppression to a “fire loss management” orienta-tion designed to prevent fires from happening andreducing their consequences when they occur.

The United States Fire Administration, as wehave proposed to call the Federal instrumentality,would have other important functions as well:l To evaluate the Nation’s fire problem, through

data collection and analysis, research, and con-ferences, and to keep the public and allbranches and levels of government informedon current matters concerning destructive fire;

l To analyze and report on programs related tofire in other Federal agencies and recommendchanges that would strengthen the Federaleffort;

l Through the creation of a National Fire Acad-emy, to provide improved training and ed-ucation for fire service personnel, buildingdesigners, code officials, and others;

l To strengthen public awareness of fire’s threat;l To provide bloc grants to State government

units for disbursement to local governments.

AMERICA BURNING 139

(These grants should not be overburdenedwith Federal criteria but contain simple guide-lines for each State fire agency to administer.)Parallels to the intergovernmental relations en-

visioned for the U.S. Fire Administration exist inthe field of criminal justice. The Law Enforce-ment Assistance Administration awards grantsfor the strengthening of local law enforcement.LEAA gathers crime data, keeps criminal recordsand statistics for use by local law enforcementagencies, lends advice to those agencies, and,through the Law Enforcement Education Pro-gram, trains local law enforcement officers.Counterparts are needed in the field of fireprotection.

Having given considerable thought to the ob-jectives of the U.S. Fire Administration, theCommission has concluded that the Adminis-tration would best be placed in a Federal depart-ment that has a primary responsibility for urbanaffairs, urban planning, local government as-sistance, and housing, as well as knowledge ofbuilding requirements. Hence, the Commissionrecommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Ad-ministration be located in the Department ofHousing and Urban Development. Under thePresident’s Departmental Reorganization Pro-gram, the proposed successor to HUD, whichwould be known as the Department of Com-munity Development, would also retain the urbanaffairs responsibilities.

Attachment to a Cabinet-level department ispreferable to an independent commission. Thereis considerable feeling in the Executive branchthat the growth of independent commissionsought to be arrested and reversed. Moreover, in-dependent commissions, as a rule, have a historyof early attention to their needs and later con-solidation into departments to achieve supportfrom the Executive branch. With a Cabinet-levelspokesman for its programs, the U.S. Fire Admin-istration would, over future years, have a betterchance of continuing support.

At the same time, the U.S. Fire Administrationwould suffer inattention if buried many organiza-tional levels down in its sponsoring department.The Fire Technology Division of the Institute forApplied Technology under the National Bureauof Standards within the Department of Com-

1 See Minority Report of Commissioner Phillips.

140 FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

merce is an example of good intentions and in-adequate support. 1

TO provide effective advocacy of fire preventionand control, and firm executive control, responsi-bility, and accountability, the U.S. Fire Admin-istration ought to be an Administrator-headedagency. Figure 1991 proposes an organizationalscheme for the agency. Functions to be provided,as discussed in previous chapters :

Planning and Evaluation. To provide effec-tive management, the organization must have aregular process for evaluating the success of itsprograms. It is from these evaluations that futurepriorities in the allocation of resources are derived.

General Counsel and Administrative Process.General Counsel provides the legal counsel forthe agency, while Administrative Process handlesthe budget, accounting, and personnel, as well asthe technical review of local and State assistanceprograms.

National Fire Academy. The Academy, dis-cussed in Chapter 6, has an important function asa conduit of Federal assistance to local communi-ties. Its educational programs could have a pro-nounced effect on fire prevention, fire safety inbuildings, and the performance of local fire de-partments. All segments of the field of fire protec-tion, both public and private, will benefit fromthe Academy, and all should have a part in itsdevelopment.

Research and Development. This divisionsponsors and encourages research in the be-havioral, physical sciences, and engineering areas,which have the greatest potential for reducingfuture fire losses. It works in cooperation with thetechnically oriented research programs at the Na-tional Bureau of Standards and the National Sci-ence Foundation, and with private groups. Byalso ensuring the flow of information among in-vestigators in fire research, in both governmentand private laboratories, the division can hastenprogress in research and discourage waste andduplication. A close interface with local, State,and Federal programs, the Academy, and in-formation functions is essential.

Information System. Before effective man-agement of a fire loss reduction program can beaccomplished, good information is vital. Localand State feedback is essential to program evalu-ation. The fire data base for the Nation’s fire

Figure 19-1. Proposed Organization of the U.S. Fire Administration

Department of Housing and Urban Development

services and the Federal and State governmentsshould reside in the U.S. Fire Administration.This function will provide for a nationwideexchange of information pertaining to fire andlife safety and have data collection, storage, re-trieval, and dissemination capability. A uniformreporting system should be required for all’ firejurisdictions and would provide the first compre-hensive fire data base in the Nation. The Com-mission recommends that Federal assistance insupport of State and local fire service programsbc limited to those jurisdictions complying withthe National Fire Data System reporting require-ments. The development of this program couldbe contracted to a private organization skilled ininformation systems. The National Bureau ofStandards will continue to have a role in datacollection to support its research and engineering-based technology.

Local and State Model Programs. This divi-sion will have the primary responsibility for actingas liaison with local and State model programsdeveloped through the Academy or the researchdivision. Programs that provide assistance toschool fire prevention education, community col-lege fire science, fire service master plan programs,and public media education would fall into this

division. Federal assistance is envisioned here inthe form of education, information, and programgrants. Assistance to public fire education, localmaster plan development, and statewide informa-tion systems are examples. A bloc grant systemadministered by each State fire agent is antici-pated. A State fire agency may be a State firecommission or the office of the State fire marshal.

Present Federal Roles

The Federal Government is concerned with de-structive fire in numerous ways. Research and de-velopment activities are scattered among manydifferent agencies: fire suppression (mostly to pro-tect Federal property), laws affecting the sale andshipment of hazardous materials, and testing flam-mability of materials for the purpose of settingstandards are examples of Federal involvement.

Fire prevention and control. Fire preventionis oriented toward protecting Federal buildingsand installations. In addition, the Forest Serviceof the U.S. Department of Agriculture main-tains fire control capabilities to protect the Na-tion’s forests and sponsors educational efforts toreduce forest fires. The Department of Defenseis concerned not only with the, protection of mili-tary equipment and bases, but with the use and

AMERICA BURNING 141

control of fire in warfare. The fire activities withinsome departments are complex and not alwayseasily identified. For example, the National Aero-nautics and Space Administration does not havea fire program per se, but undertakes work re-lated to fire problems as part of mission projects ata number of different research centers.

The Federal Fire Council was originally es-tablished as an interagency advisory group onmatters relating to fire safety. It formed a mediumfor pooling talent from agencies for mutual aidin solving fire problems unique to the FederalGovernment, In reality, it has operated at a mar-ginal level for several years. The U.S. Fire Ad-ministration will assume this responsibility andperform this important function for the agencies.

Research. In the realm of fire research, theFederal Government is a dominant force. InChapter 18, we estimated that the fire-orientedresearch, development, testing, and evaluationactivities in the Federal Government for fiscalyear 1972 amounted to nearly $27 million. Mostof the research is oriented to hardware solutions;there is comparatively little work on such behav-ioral questions as why people ignore fire safety,why they start tires, or how hardware systemscould be used more efficiently.

Both the National Bureau of Standards andthe National Science Foundation (under its Re-search Applied to National Needs program) havesmall but significant fundamental research pro-grams in combustion and on test methods. TheForest Service has a major research program inforest fire prevention and control.

Data and Information. Fire information re-lating to burns and deaths is collected by theCenter for Vital Statistics in the Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare, and by the For-est Service relating to fire experience in forests andwildlands. The Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration collects information on work-related fire injuries. The Consumer Product SafetyCommission collects information and conducts in-vestigations on fire accidents involving productsand flammable fabrics. Lastly, the National Bu-reau of Standards analyzes data relating toflammable fabrics and also operates a partly auto-mated Fire Information Reference Service foruse within the Federal Government. Additionally,NBS is developing a conceptual design for a Fire

142 FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

Loss Data System.Federal efforts in this area have, however, been

fragmentary-each division collecting only thatinformation it has use for. No national, uniform,comprehensive data collection and analysis sys-tem exists.

Advisory Panels. Generally, each agency withan extensive research and development program(of which fire research may be a part) has ad-visory panels composed of experts from outsidethe Government. They advise on the nature anddirection of the agency’s programs. There also ex-ists the National Research Council’s Committeeon Fire Research, which is specifically concernedwith promoting and coordinating fire research.

The U.S. Fire Administration andExisting Programs

The Commission does not propose that all Federalfire roles transfer to the US. Fire Administration.Certainly the U.S. Forest Service has conductedan excellent fire program and should continue todo so. The Department of Health, Education, andWelfare has an excellent medical research andpublic education capability; this should be sup-ported and augmented. The research and engi-neering-based technology programs presentlyunderway at the National Bureau of Standardsshould continue to provide the base needed forimproved fire safety. The research program ofthe National Science Foundation is making asignificant contribution to needed fundamentalscientific knowledge, and should continue. TheDepartment of Housing and Urban Developmentshould continue to encourage fire safety throughthe standards it has developed for its housing pro-grams. The proposed U.S. Fire Administrationwould complement and help coordinate thesemany activities; it would provide the comprehen-sive evaluation and guidance necessary to deter-mine areas of greatest need and then mobilizeefforts in that direction; it would act as the centralpoint in a program of information exchange thatwould strengthen all the Federal programs havingto do with fire. And it would fill the voids, pro-viding Federal help where it does not presentlyexist-such as providing assistance to local fireservices. The recommended responsibilities ofFederal agencies, and of the private sector, areshown in Table 19-1, on pages 144 and 145.

Implementing the U.S. Fire Administration

New legislation will be required to create the U.S.Fire Administration. Federal involvement willhave to be phased, initially attacking the highpriority problems where there is agreement onsolutions. Establishment of the Administrationwill be a giant first step in the right direction.

The programs of the U.S. Fire Administrationwill also be subject to evolution and changingpriorities. It is important, and should be a mat-ter of continuing policy, that vitally affectedgroups, both in and out of government, partici-pate in the planning of the agency’s programs;that includes fire service organizations, the insur-ance industry, fire equipment manufacturers,codes and standards organizations, and especiallythe National Fire Protection Association. For theagency as a whole, this participation can be in-formal; but for the National Fire Academy, aformal advisory board should be established.

The projected costs in Table 19-2 can serve asan indication of minimum operating programneeds and as a starting point for discussion.

Some of the amounts in the table should bethought of as “seed” monies-that is, funds to aidand encourage State and local governments toimprove their programs and to sponsor researchand information exchange. The funds in the Fed-eral portion are also intended to overcome presentbarriers to innovation by creating the climate thatprovides the incentives to private enterprise toturn their attention to neglected needs in fire pro-tection, For example, paid fire departmentstypically spend less than 1 percent of their budgetson capital and equipment investments. By en-couraging them to spend 2 percent, the proposedprogram should enlarge the market for newequipment to the point where industry can affordmajor investments in improving firefightingequipment.

The most important aim of the proposed ex-penditures is to reduce the Nation’s tragic lossesfrom fire. The Commission believes that a reduc-tion of 5 percent a year in deaths, injuries, andproperty losses is an attainable goal. That rate ofreduction cannot be sustained indefinitely, andmight be expected to level off as losses approachhalf of what they are today, It would take about14 years to reach that plateau, (Bear in mindthat the goal is a 5 percent reduction from the

Table 19-2. Annual Program Operating Budgets

U.S. Fire Administration $124,840,000

Local fire master plan development 30,000,000 1

State and local training assistance 30,000,000 1

ResearchEquipment upgrading assistance

26,000,0002

Public education15,000,0001

Firefighter personal protective equip-9,600,000

mentNational fire data system

4,000,0001

National Fire Academy3,740,0001

Administration4,000,0002,500,000

Other programs 28,250,000

Burn treatment center, unit and pro-gram development (HEW)

National Institutes of Health program5,000,000

(burn and smoke research) (HEW) 3,250,000Rural fire protection (USDA, Title IV of

Public Law 92-419) 7,000,0003

Detection and alarm systems and built-inprotection loan insurance (HUD) 10,000,000

Research and engineering-based tech-nology program (NBS) 3,000,000

Total $153,090,0004

1 These Federal programs require State and local gov-ernments to provide matching participation.

2 The $26 million does not include the current fireresearch budgets of Federal agencies. Funds shown herewould be used to contract with public and private agen-cies where appropriate.

3 This was the recommended annual funding level fora 3-year conservative rural fire protection program.Funds have not, as yet, been appropriated and the Com-mission feels that funding is more than justified by thelosses in the areas covered.

4 This budget is an estimate of the average annual ex-penditure for the first 5 years. The mix of expenditureswill vary as staffs are recruited and trained.

totals of the year preceding, which is a slower at-trition than 5 percent this year, 10 percent nextyear, 15 percent the year thereafter.) In the firstyear, about 600 lives would be saved; at the endof 5 years, a cumulative total of 8,300 lives wouldbe saved; at the end of 10 years, a total of 28,000lives would be saved. During that lo-year period,119,000 Americans would be spared the traumaof serious burn injury. Of importance from thestandpoint of cost-effectiveness is that fact that a5 percent reduction in dollar losses due to prop-erty destruction, personal earnings losses, andburn treatment costs would be $350 million thefirst year-which is considerably more than wehave projected for the annual costs of a Federalprogram for each of its first 5 full years.

AMERICA BURNING 143

Table 19-1 • Major Federal and Private Responsibility by Proposed U.S. Fire Administration Divisions

Agency

Department of Housing andUrban Development, (De-partment of Communi tyDevelopment)

Establish U.S. Fire Adminis-tration

Department of Commerce(Department of EconomicAffairs)

Department of Health,Education, and Wel fare( D e p a r t m e n t o f H u m a nResources)

Department of Agriculture(Department of NaturalResources)

General Services Adminis-tration

PRIVATE

National Science Foundation(RANN)

National Academy ofSciences

Department of Defense

Consumer Product SafetyCommission

Department of Transporta-t ion

Academy

Establish AcademyAcademy functions:

(1) Fire service leadership edu-cation and training

(2) Develop curricula and modelprograms for:

• training fire service instruc-tors -

• training fire management• fire suppression• fire prevention• master plan program• information systems• entrance and promotional ex.

aminations• paramedics and emergency

medical services• arson investigation• fire safety design for engineers

and architects• standardize firefighting termi-

(3) Advocate for fire services

Act as technical support arm forthe Academy

Coordinate f i re prevent ion pro-grams with Academy

Coordinate rural and wildlands firetraining with Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy

Act as disaster research arm forAcademy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy in fireprotection and safety activitiesfor all transportation modes

Information systems

Develop National Fire Data System• t ied in wi th State and local

systems. develop uniform sys-tems of rep porting

• research information collection• investigatory responsibilities

for information gathering• disseminate information• publish report to President

and Congress yearly on fireprevention and control status

• review all Federal or federallysponsored fire pro rams an-nually and report to O MB

• public education

Research and engineering basedtechnology fire information sys-

Report status of programs and firebudgets to USFA

Investigatory responsibil it ies togather in format ion to supportprogram

Burn and smoke injury and deathinformation s stem

Report status of programs and firebudgets to USFA

Fire facts

Report status of programs and firebudgets to USFA

Federal building fire experienceinformation

Report findings of merit to USFA

Contract for development and im-plementation of information sys-tem; commerc ia l ly d is t r ibuteinformation (NFPA)

National Electronic Injury Surveil-lance System

Provide transportation fire data

144 FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

Local and State model programs Research and development

Urban fire protection and educa-tion program

Implement at State and local level:information systems grantsstate fire training grantsmaster plan for fire protec-tionlocal code enforcement pro-gramsfire euipment grantsfire safety systems analysisand impact statementshome fire alarm systemsimproved fire protection stan-dards in focal and State codesinformation systems (UFIRS)

Assist State and local building andfire code groups in the develop-ment of standards

Sponsor research in urban f i re

(1) Fi re prevent ion and educa-

fire caused by people (arsont ion:

negligence)effective fire prevention prac-ticespublic education (with HEW)

(2) Fire services:fire equipmentfire managementfirefighter injuriesfire suppression.

(3) fire safety design.Develop residential fire protection

code for minimum property stand.

Conduct research and development

systems approach to fire safety

principles of fire detection andalarm systemsprinciples of fire retardantsfire behavior modelsprinciples of built-in protectionsystemsnew test methodsnature of basic flammabilityfire equipment standardsbuilding fire safety

Evaluate and classify:building materialsfire hazard properties

S t a n d a r d i z e :fire research physical Scienceterminology

Sponsor specia l educat ion forteachers

Assist local fire departments andcode enforcement agencies

through notification of hazardImplement health department fire

prevent ion programs at locallevels

Sponsor research in:burn and smoke treatmentpublic education for fire Safety(with USFA)

Improve quality and availability offire injury medical care

Rural fire protection and fire ed.ucation program

develop water systems, fi.nance fire equipment, fire pre-vention planning, advocate forthe rural environment

Forestand wildlands fire protectionprogram

Implement Federal building firesafety design

Conduct research in forest fire be-havior and control weather fore-cast andsystems

early-warning

Sponsor research in Federal build-ing fire safety design

Model code groups implement im-proved fire protection standards

Sponsor and conduct research inall fire areas including:

Proprietary interestsMaterials testingProduct development

Sponsor research in fire technologyappl icat ion and basic f i re re-search

Serve as a review committee on fireneeds

Model program for disaster pre.paredness

Research for disaster preparedness

Flammable fabric and test methoddevelopment

Conduct research for transportationfire safety

AMERICA BURNING 145

PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE

20WHAT CITIZENS CAN DO

It is an accepted principle of our society thatgovernment ought to intervene to protect citi-zens when voluntary safeguards are inadequate.As long as there are drivers who drink, there willbe a need for government efforts to keep themoff the highways. As long as there are unscrupu-lous merchants, there will be a need for laws andcourt procedures to protect consumers. As long asfood processors use additives of unknown hazardsto health, there will be a need for government tot e s t t h e s e c h e m i c a l s a n d b a n t h e m w h e nappropriate.

And yet, two themes in American thinkingabout government run counter to acceptance ofthis principle. First, we as a people do not wantgovernment regulating every aspect of our lives.Second, we regard government regulation as alast resort, a morally inferior solution to voluntarysafeguards. We would prefer, in other words, thatin our society merchants and manufacturers wantto protect the public rather than be required todo so. In brief, we want government that is notpaternalistic and all-encompassing,

A balance must be struck. As President Nixonpointed out in his Second Inaugural, there is no“purely government solution for every problem”and individuals must be encouraged “to do more

for themselves and decide more for themselves.”Where the Government should act, he alsopledged, it “will act boldly and lead boldly.”

Consider the relevance of public concern tothese observations. First, history has demonstratedover and over that the pressure of public concernlies behind voluntary self-regulation. The ratingcode of the movie industry is a convenient exam-ple. Second, government regulation has wideacceptability only when it is backed by consid-erable public concern. It is public concern thatencourages voluntary regulation and legitimatesgovernment regulations.

This Commission harbors no illusions about theamount of public concern over the deaths, in-juries, and property losses from the Nation’s de-structive fires. That concern is minuscule whencompared with the magnitude of the problem.We hope, of course, that this report will serve tobroaden and invigorate public concern over firesafety. The task to educate and sensitize Ameri-cans to the problems of fire safety, both by gov-ernment and by private groups, must begin now.

To make a difference, public concern must bechanneled toward specific objectives. Any num-ber of this Commission’s recommendations mightserve as focal points for public pressure. At the

AMERICA BURNING 147

Federal level, for example, proposed new actionsthat could be hastened through “grassroots” support include :

Extension of flammability standards or label-ing requirements beyond rugs, mattresses, andchildren’s sleepwear to other kinds of fabricsand to other classes of materials, such as thosethat go into home furnishings;Undertaking of a long-term, multiple-media,public service advertising campaign to makeAmericans more conscious of fire safety;Establishment of a United States Fire Adminis-tration to improve the fire services and of a Na-tional Fire Academy to upgrade their training,together with programs of financial assistanceto local fire departments;

Extension of the number of hospital facilitiesproviding burn treatment and support of re-search to improve the treatment of burn andsmoke inhalation injuries.Citizens can also press for improvements at the

State and local levels:Strengthening of the fire safety provisions ofbuilding codes;Shifting of fire department priorities towardfire prevention, with emphasis on inspectionand educational programs;Encouragement of regional cooperative ar-rangements among fire departments;Providing adequate fire safety education in theschools and to preschool youngsters in nurseryschools and day care centers.

Americans can take action to protect themselves from fire.

148 WHAT CITIZENS CAN DO

The Commission is confident that every con-cerned citizen who has access to pen and papercan find an appropriate avenue of expression,whether it is a letter to an editor or a letter to apublic official elected to serve him. Arousing theinterest of the press is important for two reasons:The press has the investigative tools to explorethe adequacy of fire protection, particularly at thelocal level; it also has considerable power to moldpublic opinion.

Where Fire Safety Begins

In this report we have tried to make clear thatfire is a potential threat to the life and well-beingof every American, that while it has victimizedthe poor disproportionately no one is immune toharm from fire.

But prudence in daily living can minimize thechance of fire and make the difference betweenlife and death if fire strikes. The minimal precau-tions in the home are well-established, if seldomobserved: a well-maintained heating system, nooverloaded electrical circuits, flammable liquidsstored in tightly fitting containers and away fromheaters and furnaces, absence of rubbish, unob-structed stairways, matches out of reach of chil-dren. Beyond these minimal precautions lie posi-tive steps: the installation of fire extinguishers,fire escapes, or escape ladders, and-most im-portant-early-warning detectors. Another meas-ure, costing not a cent, is a family discussion-and rehearsal-of steps to be taken during variouskinds of fire emergencies.

Prudence must be exercised outside the homeas well. If there appear to be dangerous conditionsat the place of work, these should be reported tothe Occupational Safety and Health Administra-tion. A conscious effort to note the location of fireexits when entering a building or a restaurantwill likely become, in time, an ingrained habit.

Lastly, acquainting friends with the subject offire safety may help to save a life or two some day.

America’s Future

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the philosopherHeraclitus observed : “All things are exchangedfor fire, and fire for all things-as wares are ex-

changed for gold and gold for wares.”Today we would put it differently: that heat

energy is involved in the processes of creation andtransformation, as it is involved as well in de-struction and decay. Heat is both friend and foe.Lumber, petroleum and its distillates, electricalenergy : Name any major source of destructivefire, and one realizes at once that we cannot getalong without them. But we live in a tenuousrelationship with them.

Through most of American history, resourceswere so abundant that we were blind to thattenuous relationship. What fire consumed couldeasily be replaced. Coincidentally, this Nationgrew to maturity during a century and a halfwhen death was accepted stoically. Whetherby diphtheria, typhoid, or fire, death was entitledto its toll, even among young children. Advancesin medical science changed American hopes andexpectations, though fire never received the at-tention that went into the major diseases. As formaterial resources, only recently has the UnitedStates been converted to the view forced on othernations long ago: that resources are limited andneed to be carefully managed.

During the years of America’s development,one noble view has prevailed: that a citizen isentitled to any behavior that is not injurious to hisneighbors. What has changed over the years is theconcept of what is injurious behavior, and it hasbeen broadened as a result of attention to ecologi-cal considerations. A dramatic example of howthat concept has widened is the restrictions im-paced on major fuel users during the winter of1972-73. What might come to prevail, in futureyears, is the view that a fire caused by one Ameri-can is a danger and an unfair cost to his fellowcitizens.

It is appropriate to close with a reminder of anobservation made earlier in this report. ManyAmericans, referencing the Second Amendment,vehemently defend their right to possess guns asprotection against intruders. Happily, it has notbeen a task of this Commission to debate guncontrol. What is worthy of remark is that Ameri-cans have a duty, much more than a right, toprotect themselves and others from fire.

AMERICA BURNING 149

MINORITY REPORTMinority Report of Anne Wight Phillips, M.D.,

Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts Gen-eral and Youville Hospitals.

TO KEEP THEM SAFE

A Tribute.-This minority of the National Com-mission on Fire Prevention and Control commendsthe President and the Congress for their concernfor public safety and wishes to express her esteemfor the dedicated majority of the Commission withsome of whose recommendations she concurs al-though taking the liberty of disagreeing with others.

FIGURE 1

I am indebted to Patty and her parents for permissionto present this series of pictures, which emphasize, moreadequately than words can tell, the urgency of our fireproblem. This picture was taken at age 8, before herburn injury.

Top photo by Frank Kelly, Boston Herald American

MINORITY REPORT OF COMMISSIONERANNE W. PHILIPS, M.D.

Mr. President and Members of the Congress ofthe United States:

This minority, although endorsing many of theconclusions and recommendations of the majority ofthe Commission, cannot approve the following :

I,

II.

III.

The magnitude of the projected budget for themajority’s program ($153,090,000)The location of responsibility for all of the na-tion’s fire problems within a single agency anddepartmentThe proposed paramount objective for the newU.S. Fire Administration and the resulting dis-tribution of resources recommended

IV. The proposed interim budget for the NationalBureau of Standards

I. The Minority Opposes the Projected BudgetThe saving of a single life is not justified, if for

the same expenditure of funds and effort, it is pos-sible to save more than one. Neither in direction normagnitude can I support the majority’s projectedbudget, for I believe that the saving in lives, proper-ty, and human suffering, which would be achievedby the Commission majority’s program, can beequalled or exceeded with a significantly smallerbudget.

II. The Minority Opposes the U.S. FireAdministration

At the end of the first half year as a member ofthe Commission I was in favor of the creation of asingle Federal agency to coordinate the activities ofall agencies concerned with fire in the Federal GOV-ernment. The need for careful planning for the Na-tion’s fire programs and the prospect of economythrough reduced duplication and administrativeoverhead seemed to justify it. Reluctantly, I havecome to take the opposite position for the followingreasons :

1. Likelihood of neglect of important aspects of thefire problem

In whatever department the proposed U.S. FireAdministration settles, it must, inevitably, (unless itis very large) lack expert knowledge and specialinterest in those fire problems, which are primarilyconcerned with the interests of other Federal de-partments. Even with the best of intentions, neededprograms outside the major thrust of the Adminis-tration and the interests of the chosen departmentwill be down-graded or neglected, receiving lessattention and funding than they merit-in part be-cause the department and the administration will

151

not have the background to see their importance andin part because the outside department will haveless interest in pursuing fire programs, consideringthem Fire Administration matters.

Judging from the proposed budget, this down-grading process has already begun.

2. Limited national resources

At its first meeting, the National Commission onFire Prevention and Control unanimously adoptedas its objective the reduction of the losses of life andproperty from destructive fires. A glance at the ma-jority’s proposed budget will indicate that any pros-pects of financial savings, due to better administra-tion or wasteful duplication, may be of fleetingbenefit in the face of the high costs of the proposedprograms, some of which may have little impact onthe losses of life and property from destructive fires.In view of our limited resources it appears wise tospend such funds as can be made available on solu-tions to the fire problem, using existing agencies,rather than on creating a new administration andnew demands for funds.

3. Existing agencies could make substantial stridesin fire prevention and control

It is sound policy to give responsibility for anyenterprise to those with special knowledge and abil-ity in the field, but impossible in this case, since nosingle department has “expertise” in all aspects ofthe fire problem. There are many people with suchspecialized knowledge and ability in the variousFederal departments and in the private sector, whoare ready, willing, and able to go to work on re-ducing the Nation’s fire losses. It seems the partof wisdom to use them.

4. Loss of valuable volunteer effort

It is apparent from the programs proposed forthe U.S. Fire Administration that, if implementedas written, the Administration would take overmany functions which are now carried out-with-out cost to the taxpayer-by private enterprise.This minority cannot contemplate with com-placency the demise of the National Fire ProtectionAssociation, for example, which in the 78 years ofits existence, has, through its fire prevention efforts,its educational programs and its life safety codes,become a world leader in the continuing war againstfire. No one will ever know the number of lives,jobs, and millions of dollars worth of property savedby their endeavors.

If a U.S. Fire Administration is to be, let theenabling legislation be so drawn that maximumuse is made of such private agencies. It would seemsimpler and cheaper and quicker to call upon themfor their expert assistance now, without the cre-ation of a new Government agency.

152

5. White knight effect

The fire problem has wide ramifications-social,political, scientific, economic, and so on. The pro-posed multifaceted US. Fire Administration, bytaking on all aspects of the fire problem, may, likethe white knight, gallop off in all directions, spread-ing itself too thin to prove the master of any. Itwould seem that there is more to be gained bytackling smaller aspects of the problem and handlingthat little well.

6. The Commission recommendations run rough-shod over Title I

Congress, by Title I of the Fire Research andSafety Act of 1968 (see App. I), authorized theSecretary of Commerce to conduct, directly, orthrough grants, fire research, educational programs,a fire information reference service, and so on. Inthat act Congress also assured the continuation ofother existing Federal fire programs by stating that“nothing contained in this title shall be deemed torepeal, supersede, or diminish existing authority orresponsibility of any agency or instrumentality of theFederal Government.” Congress, therefore, afterdue deliberation, felt it unwise to remove all fireproblems to a single department, although givingthe Department of Commerce the lion’s share ofthe responsibility. This Commission minority findsitself in agreement with them.

FIGURE 2

Patty’s face on her first admission to the Shriners’ BurnsInstitute in Galveston. She underwent more than 3months of reconstructive surgery, costing approximately$27.000. (The darkening of her hair at this age is nor-mal for her family coloring). Figure 3 shows her ap-pearance after many operations.

7. Inevitable delay

Statistics tell us that 300,000 children are goingto be seriously burned in this country in the next2 years. Their suffering depends upon our speed(Figs. 1, 2, and 3). Admittedly, we are never goingto prevent all fire accidents, but there is sound evi-dence that many of the victims can be spared iffire safety education programs are promptly initi-ated. With swift and adequate funding, the De-partment of Commerce might have the multimediaeducation campaign recommended by the Com-mission well underway before hearings on the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration can begin.

8. Danger of pressure from special groupsAlthough in the majority of instances the interests

of special groups in the fire field will run parallelwith the interests of the Nation, the situation shouldnot be created where the Nation’s fire interestscould be subordinated to those of any special group.

III-A. The Minority Questions the Direction ofEmphasis for the U.S. Fire Administration

This Commissioner believes that, if there is to bean all-encompassing U.S. Fire Administration, itsparamount objective should be the same as thatadopted by the Commission: the reduction of thelosses of life and property from destructive fires.Contributing to that objective should be programssuch as firesafety education for the general public,

FIGURE 3.

Results after extensive plastic reconstruction. Patty wishesno further surgery at this time.

applied research to produce a safer environment,basic research on the nature of fire and smoke, theirbehavior and control, improved education for mem-bers of the fire service, and so on,

The concept set forth in Chapter 19, that assist-ance to local fire services should be paramountamong the objectives of the proposed US. FireAdministration I cannot accept.

Tremendous credit should be given to the fireservice for its ready acceptance of the concept thatfiremen should serve primarily as “fire preventers”,rather than “firefighters.” They will need help inchanging to this new position. Even before thisshift, there was a need for better education of thefire officer-better training in command, manage-ment, educational and training techniques, fire sup-pression, community relations, arson, and so on, towhich the new emphasis on fire prevention must beadded.

I believe that creation of a National Fire Academyis needed, but not as an objective ranking higherthan all others. If a secondary objective is to be as-signed, let it be to knowledge-new knowledgethrough research and dissemination of existingknowledge. Widespread public education in firesafety principles should be our first concern.

There is an old saying in the fire service, cited inthe Commission report, that “The three principalcauses of fire are men, women, and children.” Sta-tistics bear this out, making it crystal clear thatmost deaths, most injuries, and most fires are causedby people. Since people are the cause of the over-whelming majority of fires, it is reasonable to be-lieve that people must be included in the solution.

Much can be done by making clothing fire re-sistant and by installing automatic extinguishingsystems and early detection systems-there havebeen no recorded instances of multiple deaths inbuildings fully equipped with operational sprinklers,for example-but man can, and does, circumventthe devices installed for his protection, paintingover sprinkler heads, propping open smoke and firedoors and putting a penny in the fuse box. Thereis no substitute for understanding how to preventfires and what to do when fires occur.

What do Americans Know About Fire Safety?In the first months of the Commission’s existence,

a search was made for data on the American pub.lic’s knowledge of fire safety principles, Surprisingly,the only studies discovered were made after smallfire education campaigns. No one had probed ourcitizens’ basic fire knowledge.

Since an incredible delay is necessitated by Fed-eral restrictions on questionnaires, a survey of ourcitizens’ knowledge was undertaken independentlyof the Commission and without its financial sup-

153

port.’ Initially several hundred adults and childrenaround the Nation were interviewed. Then aquestionnaire was devised and is now being used inschools, together with an answer sheet, SO that stu-dents can learn, while correcting their own papers.A copy of the questions will be found in Figure 4,should the reader wish to sample his or her ownfiresafety knowledge before reading further, Theanswers appear at the end of this minority report.

1.

2.

3.4.

5.

6.

7.

If your house began to fill up with thick, black smoke,what would you do? (answer fully)

What would you do if you woke up at night, smelled,smoke, and found that your bedroom door was shut,but hot when you touched it?

Will the clothing you have on now burn?What would you do right now if your clothing caught

on fire?If you were trapped in a bedroom on the fifth floor

with flames outside in the hall and smoke pouringin under the door (with no telephone and no fireescape), what would you do?

(a) When you go to a strange place (movie house,friend’s house for the night, hotel, restaurant,etc.), do you check to see where the exits or fireescapes are?

(b) If the answer to 6(a) was “Yes,” do YOU dependon being able to see the exit to find it, or do youfigure out how to find it in the dark or in thicksmoke?

Do you have a family escape plan, including ways ofgetting out of your house if the stairs or doors areblocked by fire, and a meeting place outside thehouse?

8. What should you do (or should your wife or motherdo) if the frying pan catches on fire?

9. Carbon monoxide is produced by almost all fires.What effect does it have on you before it makesyou sleepy and kills you?

10. Assume you plan to hang by your hands from a win-dow ledge and then drop to the earth below. Esti-mate in feet the distance you could drop and stillhave a 50:50 chance of surviving without seriousinjury.

11. (a) What is the reason for having fuses in an electriccircuit?

( b ) W h a t s t r e n g t h f u s e s h o u l d b e u s e d i n a nordinary lighting circuit?

12. What number should you dial to report a fire by tele-phone, and how should you report it?

1 This Commissioner has paid for all printing and most 2 The author of this report wishes to express profoundof the postage from her own limited resources. She is gratitude for assistance in this survey rendered by Chiefindebted to Harvard Medical School for a small supple- Robert Fly of Kirkland, Wash., and Chief Merrill Hend-mentary outlay for postage. ricks of Dallas, Tex.

154

13.

14.15.

16.

When is an electric cord dangerous? (give at leasttwo examples)

When is a double plug dangerous?What should you do if you discover a large fire in

your basement?

17.

18.19.

If you are trying to light a gas oven or burner andthe first match goes out too soon, what should youdo?

W h a t i s m e a n t b y “spontaneous combustion” or“spontaneous ignition”?

How should you store oily or greasy rags?Why should gasoline be stored only in metal cans with

self-closing caps?20. Should you put out an electric fire with water?

Limited Survey Finds Alarming Voids in PublicFire Safety Knowledge

Data from 2,109 Americans of all ages fromMaine to Florida and New York to California fol-lows. 2 It would be presumptuous to generalize fromthis small sampling to the Nation as a whole, butthus far the findings have been surprisingly consist-ent from State to State and from one school districtto another.Less than 30, out of every 100 teenagers questioned,

knew that in the presence of smoke they shouldstoop low or crawl out of the fire area.

Half of the youngsters from 7 to 18 questionedwould do something dangerous if the frying pancaught fire, attempting to carry it or throw wateron it. Teenagers were no more knowledgeablethan children from 7 through 12.

Over 500 people questioned did not know that open-ing a hot door during a fire would almost cer-tainly expose them to heat above human toler-ance. This group included 44 out of 177 teachers.

Almost no children under seven knew that theyshould drop and roll if their clothing caught fire.

Very few families had a well thought out escapeplan, including a predesignated meeting placeoutside the house.

Three-quarters of the adults questioned recom-mended the use of too strong a fuse for an ordi-nary lighting circuit.

Asked what they would do if trapped in a fifth floorroom with flames outside in the hall and smokepouring in under the door (with no telephone andno fire escape), only 3 out of 10, old or young,thought to stuff anything into the death-dealingcrack. Some, of all ages, including teachers, saidthey would jump.

39, out of every 100 adults questioned, would reactdangerously if their clothing ignited, many failingto comprehend the speed with which fire canspread to the neck and shoulders from the trousercuff or hemline (Fig. 5) .

FIGURE 5

The need for public fire safety education is clear.That it can be effective is documented by the Com-mission in Chapter 15. Other evidence is available.Hopefully, my objection to the direction proposedfor the U.S. Fire Administration now appears justi-fied.

What of the budget?

III-B. The Minority Opposes the BudgetAllocations

My main objections to the proposed budget arethreefold :

1. Proposed budget is not responsive to the con-

cerns of the Nation’s fire chiefs.-In the early daysof this Commission, a questionnaire was sent out tofire chiefs throughout the Nation. Replies from10,000 chiefs have been tabulated, Under the head-ing “Evaluation of Fire Department Problems” thechiefs were asked to rank “in order from most seriousto least serious” the problem areas of concern tothem. Unselfishly, the chiefs gave top ranking to“lack of effective public education on fire safety.”Inadequate training and education for fire servicepersonnel was listed eighth and the need for im-proved fire department apparatus and personnelprotective equipment ninth. The proposed budgetfails to reflect their considered opinions.

155

2. Need for pilot projects.-The majority of theCommission has recommended that every local firejurisdiction prepare a master plan designed to meetthe community’s present and future needs, and $30million are budgeted for local master plan develop-ment. Similarly $15 million have been set aside forequipment upgrading and $10 million for detectionand alarm systems and built-in protection loan in-surance, We do not know whether these programswill reduce the losses of life and property from de-structive property. These, and untried educationalprograms, should be tested on a local or regionalbasis through pilot projects, before investing largeamounts of money on their implementation nation-wide. Training of burn specialists should likewise,precede the development of burn centers.

3. Inadequate provisions for public education.-The budget allotment for public education will notproduce the type of program the Commisison hasenvisioned in chapter 15. There are 25 million chil-dren in this Nation between kindergarten and sixthgrade. The $6 million specified for elementaryschool education on chart 15.2 is estimated by bothprivate and Government experts to be insufficient toput one piece of effective material in the hands ofeach school child. Ten million would be required tosupply effective graded materials to each of theNation’s 1.3 million elementary school teachers.Other means, such as using existing films and visualaids, close-circuit TV, etc. should be explored, butit seems unlikely that the proposed budget will beadequate to achieve the desired results.

IV. Minority Finds Interim Budget Insufficient

The setting of the interim budget at $3 million forresearch and engineering programs fairly well pre-cludes the National Bureau of Standards from act-ing in accordance with most of its mandate underTitle I during the next year or two. Assigned an in-adequate budget of $5 million at the outset andunderfunded at that, it can be reasonably expectedto continue to do only those things for which it hasthe greatest research and engineering ability. TheNIFE program (National Inventory of Fire Experi-ence) for cooperative effort between the Bureau ofStandards and the National Fire Protection Asso-ciation will probably be left in abeyance because ofthe uncertainty of its future. If a national fire datasystem is to be set up under the US. Fire Adminis-tration, and essentially independent of them both,there may be little initiative to go forward.

Almost certainly 2 years and more will passbefore any real Federal fire safety education pro-gram is undertaken (whether through grants orotherwise), while week after week more Pattys arecarried into the Nation’s hospitals (Figs. 2 & 3).

156

DISCUSSION

I. Budget

Although in my opinion the total budget pro-posed by the majority of the Commission is toobig, yet what has been spent on fire prevention andcontrol by the Federal Government in the pastis too small.

II. Measures To Reduce Injuries and Loss of Lifeand Property From Destructive Fires

It is the conviction of this minority that withouta continuing massive program to educate the publicin simple fire safety measures, a substantial reduc-tion in our tragic American fire toll cannot beexpected. The principal measures recommended tosave lives, suffering and property are:

1. A massive multimedia, recipient-oriented publiceducation campaign.

2. Fire education in the schools.

Comparisons of deaths in U.S. military personnel (Army,Navy, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Air Force) resultingfrom actions by hostile forces in Vietnam, 1961 through1972, and deaths from U.S. fires for the same period(Statistics from the Department of Defense and theNational Fire Protection Association).

3. Fire department involvement in fire safety edu-cation of commercial, industrial, and institutionalpersonnel and in an optional inspection programfor dwellings.

4. Development of a reliable and inexpensivesmoke and fire detection system for dwellings.

5. Reduction of the hazards of flammable wear-ing apparel.

6. Use of noncombustible interior finish materialsin residences and places of business and assembly.

7. Complete automatic fire extinguishing systemsfor homes (and hospitals) for the incapacitated andfor high-rise buildings.

8. A program of fire safety training for the healtheducator aides of the Department of Health, Edu-cation, and Welfare, who, because of their rapportwith the residents of high-risk areas may be able toteach fire safety principles on a person to personbasis.

9. Increased research on smoke and smoke in-halation injury which is responsible for more thanhalf of the Nation’s fire deaths.

III, Principal Measures To Improve the FireServices

1. Establishment of a National Fire Academy.2. Research on better engineering of breathing

apparatus and protective clothing.3. Federal support for State and local fire in-

spection programs.

Minority Recommendations

1. Continued support of existing fire programs inthe Federal Government.

2. Reduction of the projected total additionalfire budget by $100 million during the build-upyears and $75 million during the operating years,subject to subsequent review.

3. Retention of the Department of Commerceas the principal focus for the Federal fire effort,in accordance with the provisions of Title I of theFire Research and Safety Act of 1968.

4. Swift and adequate funding of the Depart-ment of Commerce to permit early institution of amassive. multimedia fire safety education campaign.

5. Enactment of new legislation to assign respon-sibility, for direct support to the fire services, to theDepartment of Housing and Urban Development,including the establishment of a national fireacademy.

6. Creation of a new temporary Commission in1983 to assess the effectiveness of the Federal fireprograms and make recommendations to the Presi-dent and the Congress for further steps to diminishthe Nation’s annual toll from fire.

7. Increased use of the oversight function of theappropriate committees to assure assessment of ef-fectiveness and adequate planning by the depart-ments during the interim.

This minority opposes the creation of a new Fed-eral fire agency at this time. During the proposedreview in 1983 it would be appropriate to considerwhether the Nation’s interests would be betterserved by the establishment of a Federal agency forfire research and education in the Department ofCommerce.

This minority urges the President and the Con-gress in considering these recommendations andthose of the majority of the Commission, to use asyour yardstick, the probable reduction of life andproperty losses if the measures suggested areadopted.

In conclusion, I support the position of the ma-jority of the Commission that expanded Federalaction is needed in the fire field and that, properlydirected, the investment will pay off handsomely, Afew final words may emphasize the need:

As grim as were our losses due to enemy actionin Vietnam, they were small compared with our Na-tion’s fire casualties for the same period (Fig. 6).Smoke and fire seriously injure 300,000 Americansevery year and kill nearly 12,000. How many are12,000? How many people could you call by nameif you met them on the street? 2,000? 4,000? In thisNation, fire and smoke kill more people each andevery year than the average person knows andgravely injures more than he has ever met.

Respectfully submitted,

ANNE WIGHT PHILLIPS.

SELF-SCORING THE FIRE SAFETYQUESTIONNAIRE

157

158

1 The pressure on a CO, extinguisher is generally about600 lbs.; Pressure on an all purpose extinguisher is gen-erally about 300 lbs. Stand off from the fire 7 or 8 feet.

Add up your points to determine your fire safety score.Maximum poss ib le score=100 (101 fo r pa rachu te

jumper ) .

159

APPENDIX IPUBLIC LAW 90-259

(90th Congress, S. 1124, Mar. 1, 1968)

A N A C T

To amend the Organic Act of the National Bureauof Standards to authorize a fire research and safetyprogram, and for other purposes.

Be i t enacted by the Senate and House of Repre-s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f A m e r i c a i n C o n -g r e s s a s s e m b l e d , That th i s Act may be c i ted as the“ F i r e R e s e a r c h a n d S a f e t y A c t o f 1 9 6 8 ” .

TITLE I-FIRE RESEARCH AND SAFETYPROGRAM

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 101. The Congress finds that a comprehen-sive fire research and safety program is needed inthis country to provide more effective measuresof protection against the hazards of death, injury,and damage to property. The Congress finds that itis desirable and necessary for the Federal Govern-ment, in carrying out the provisions of this title, tocooperate with and assist public and private agen-cies. The Congress declares that the purpose of thistitle is to amend the Act of March 3, 1901, asamended, to provide a national fire research andsafety program including the gathering of compre-hensive fire data; a comprehensive fire researchprogram ; fire safety education and training pro-grams; and demonstrations of new approaches andimprovements in fire prevention and control, andreduction of death, personal injury, and propertydamage. Additionally, it is the sense of Congressthat the Secretary should establish a fire researchand safety center for administering this title andcarrying out its purposes, including appropriate firesafety liaison and coordination.

AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM

SEC. 102. The Act entitled “An Act to establishthe National Bureau of Standards”, approvedMarch 3, 1901, as amended (15 U.S.C. 271-278e),is further amended by adding the following sections:

“SEC. 16. The Secretary of Commerce (herein-after referred to as the ‘Secretary’) is authorizedto - -

“(a) Conduct directly or through contracts org r a n t s -

“(1) investigations of fires to determine theircauses, frequency of occurrence, severity, andother pertinent factors;

“(2) research into the causes and nature offires, and the development of improved methodsand techniques for fire prevention, fire control,and reduction of death, personal injury, andproperty damage;

160 APPENDIX I

“(3) educational programs to-“(A) inform the public of fire hazards and

fire safety techniques, and“(B) encourage avoidance of such hazards

and use of such techniques;“(4) fire information reference services, in-

cluding the collection, analysis, and disseminationof data, research results, and other information,derived from this program or from other sourcesand related to fire protection, fire control, andreduction of death, personal injury, and propertydamage;

“(5) educational and training programs to im-prove, among other things-

“(A) the efficiency, operation, and organiza-tion of fire services, and

“(B) the capability of controlling unusualfire-related hazards and fire disasters; and“(6) projects demonstrating-

“(A) improved or experimental programs offire prevention, fire control, and reduction ofdeath, personal injury, and property damage,

“(B) application of fire safety principles inconstruction, or

“(C) improvement of the efficiency, opera-tion, or organization of the fire services.

“(b) Support by contracts or grants the develop-ment, for use by educational and other nonprofitinstitutions, of-

“ (1) fire safety and fire protection engineeringor science curriculums; and

"(2) fire safety courses, seminars, or other in-structional materials and aids for the above cur-riculums or other appropriate curriculums orcourses of instruction.

“SEC. 17. With respect to the functions authorizedby section 16 of this Act-

“(a) Grants may be made only to States andlocal governments, other non-Federal public agen-cies, and nonprofit institutions. Such a grant maybe up to 100 per centum of the total cost of theproject for which such grant is made. The Secre-tary shall require, whenever feasible, as a conditionof approval of a grant, that the recipient contributemoney, facilities, or services to carry out the pur-pose for which the grant is sought. For, the purposesof this section, ‘State’ means any State of the UnitedStates, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealthof Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, theCanal Zone, American Samoa, and the Trust Terri-tory of the Pacific Islands; and ‘public agencies’includes combinations or groups of States or localgovernments.

“(b) The Secretary may arrange with and reim-burse the heads of other Federal departments and

agencies for the performance of any such functions,and, as necessary or appropriate, delegate any ofhis powers under this section or section 16 of thisAct with respect to any part thereof, and authorizethe redelegation of such powers.

“(c) The Secretary may perform such functionswithout regard to section 3648 of the RevisedStatutes (31 U.S.C. 529).

“(d) The Secretary is authorized to request anyFederal department or agency to supply such sta-tistics, data, program reports, and other materialsas he deems necessary to carry out such functions.Each such department or agency is authorized tocooperate with the Secretary and, to the extent per-mitted by law, to furnish such materials to theSecretary. The Secretary and the heads of otherdepartments and agencies engaged in administer-ing programs related to fire safety shall, to the maxi-mum extent practicable, cooperate and consult inorder to insure fully coordinated efforts.

“(e) The Secretary is authorized to establishsuch policies, standards, criteria, and proceduresand to prescribe such rules and regulations as hemay deem necessary or appropriate to the admin-istration of such functions or this section, includingrules and regulations which-

“(1) provide that a grantee will from time totime, but not less often than annually, submita report evaluating accomplishments of activitiesfunded under section 16, and

“(2) provide for fiscal control, sound account-ing procedures, and periodic reports to the Secre-tary regarding the application of funds paid undersection 16.”

NONINTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING FEDERAL

PROGRAMS

SEC. 103. Nothing contained in this title shallbe deemed to repeal, supersede, or diminish exist-ing authority or responsibility of any agency orinstrumentality of the Federal Government.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 104. There are authorized to be appropri-ated, for the purposes of this Act, $5,000,000 forthe period ending June 30, 1970.

TITLE II-NATIONAL COMMISSION ONFIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

F I N D I N G S A N D P U R P O S E

SEC. 201. The Congress finds and declares thatthe growing problem of the loss of life and propertyfrom fire is a matter of grave national concern;that this problem is particularly acute in the Nation’surban and suburban areas where an increasing pro-portion of the population resides but it is also ofnational concern in smaller communities and ruralareas; that as population concentrates, the meansfor controlling and preventing destructive fires has

become progressively more complex and frequentlybeyond purely local capabilities; and that thereis a clear and present need to explore and developmore effective fire control and fire preventionmeasures throughout the country in the light ofexisting and foreseeable conditions. It is the pur-pose of this title to establish a commission to under-take a thorough study and investigation of thisproblem with a view to the formulation of recom-mendations whereby the Nation can reduce thedestruction of life and property caused by fire inits cities, suburbs, communities, and elsewhere.

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION

SEC. 202. (a) There is hereby established the Na-tional Commission on Fire Prevention and Control(hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”)which shall be composed of twenty members as fol-lows: the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary ofHousing and Urban Development, and eighteenmembers appointed by the President. The individ-uals so appointed as members ( 1) shall be eminentlywell qualified by training or experience to carry outthe functions of the Commission, and (2) shall beselected so as to provide representation of the viewsof individuals and organizations of all areas of theUnited States concerned with fire research, safety,control, or prevention, including representativesdrawn from Federal, State, and local governments,industry, labor, universities, laboratories, trade as-sociations, and other interested institutions or orga-nizations. Not more than six members of theCommission shall be appointed from the FederalGovernment. The President shall designate theChairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission.

(b) The Commission shall have four advisorymembers composed of-

( 1) two Members of the House of Representa-tives who shall not be members of the same po-litical party and who shall be appointed by theSpeaker of the House of Representatives, and

(2) two Members of the Senate who shall notbe members of the same political party and whoshall be appointed by the President of the Senate.

The advisory members of the Commission shall notparticipate, except in an advisory capacity, in theformulation of the findings and recommendationsof the Commission.

(c) Any vacancy in the Commission or in its ad-visory membership shall not affect the powers of theCommission, but shall be filled in the same manneras the original appointment.

D U T I E S O F T H E C O M M I S S I O N

SEC. 203. (a) The Commission shall undertake acomprehensive study and investigation to determinepracticable and effective measures for reducing thedestructive effects of fire throughout the country inaddition to the steps taken under sections 16 and 17

AMERICA ,BURNING 161

of the Act of March 3, 1901 (as added by title I ofthis Act) . Such study and investigation shall include,without being limited to-

(1) a consideration of ways in which fires canbe more effectively prevented through technolog-ical advances, construction techniques, and im-proved inspection procedures;

(2) an analysis of existing programs admin-istered or supported by the departments and agen-cies of the Federal Government and of ways inwhich such programs could be strengthened so asto lessen the danger of destructive fires inGovernment-assisted housing and in the redevel-opment of the Nation’s cities and communities:

(3) an evaluation of existing fire suppressionmethods and of ways for improving the same. in-cluding procedures for recruiting and solicitingthe necessary personnel ;

(4) An evaluation of present and future needs(including long-term needs) of training and edu-cation for fire-service personnel;

(5) a consideration of the adequacy of cur-rent tire communication techniques and sugges-tions for the standardization and improvement ofthe apparatus and equipment used in controllingfires ;

(6) an analysis of the administrative problemsaffecting the efficiency or capabilities of local firedepartments or organizations: and

(7) an assessment of local, State, and Federalresponsibilities in the development of practicableand effective solutions for reducing fire losses.(b) In carrying out its duties under this section

the Commission shall consider the results of thefunctions carried out by the Secretary of Commerceunder sections 16 and 17 of the Act of March 3,1901 (as added by title I of this Act), and consultregularly with the’ Secretary in order’ to coordinatethe work of the Commission and the functions car-ried out under such sections 16 and 17.

(c) The Commisison shall submit to the Presi-dent and to the Congress a report with respect to itsfindings and recommendations not later than twoyears after the Commission has been duly organized.

as the Commission deems necessary to carry out itsfunctions under this title.

(c) Subject to such rules and regulations as maybe adopted by the Commssion, the Chairman, with-out regard to the provisions of title 5, United StatesCode, governing appointments in the competitiveservice, and without regard to the provisions ofchapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of suchtitle relating to classification and General Schedulepay rates, shall have the power-

(1) to appoint and fix the compensation ofsuch staff personnel as hc deems necessary, and

(2) to procure temporary and intermittentservices to the same extent as is authorized bysection 3109 of title 5, United States Code.

COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS

SEC. 205. (a) Any member of the Commission,including a member appointed under section 202(b) who as a Member of Congress or in the execu-tive branch of the Government shall serve withoutcompensation in addition to that received in his reg-ular employment, but shall be entitled to reimburse-ment for travel, subsistence, and other necessaryexpenses incurred by him in connection with theperformance of duties vested in the Commission.

(b) Members of the Commission, other thanthose referred to in subsection (a), shall receivecompensation at the rate of $100 per day for eachday they are engaged in the performance of theirduties as members of the Commission and shall beentitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence,and other necessary expenses incurred by them inthe performance of their duties as members of theCommission.

EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION

POWERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 204. (a) The Commission or, on the authori-zation of the Commission, any subcommittee ormember thereof, may, for the purpose of carryingout the provisions of this title, hold hearings, taketestimony, and administer oaths or affirmations towitnesses appearing before the Commission or anysubcommittee or member thereof.

SEC. 206. There are authorized to be appropri-ated, out of any money in the Treasury not other-wise appropriated, such sums as may be necessaryto carry out this title.

EXPIRATION OF THE COMMISSION

SEC. 207. The Commission shall cease to existthirty days after the submission of its report undersection 203 (c)

Approved March 1, 1968.

Legislative historyHOUSE REPORT No. 522 accompanying H.R.

11284 (Comm. on Science and Astronautics).SENATE REPORT No, 502 (Comm. on Com-

merce) .(b) Each department, agency, and instrumental- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol . 113

ity of the executive branch of the Government, in- (1967) : Aug. 16, considered and passed Senate.cluding an independent agency, is authorized to Vol. 114 (1968) : Feb. 8, considered and passedfurnish to the Commission, upon request made by House, amended, in lieu of H.R. 11284. Feb. 16,the Chairman or Vice Chairman, such information Senate agreed to House amendment.

162 APPENDIX I

APPENDIX IIHEARING WITNESSES

Fire Issues

(Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., February 15-17, 1972)FEBRUARY 15, 1972

Hon. John J. Sparkman, Senator, Huntsville, Ala.Capt. James Dalton, Arson Division, Newark Fire

Curtis Volkamer, President, International Associa-

Department, Newark, N. J.tion of Fire Chiefs, Chicago Fire Department,

Hon. Robert H, Steele, Congressman, Vernon,Chicago, Ill.

Conn.Dr. Roswell Atwood, Director of Research and

Mrs. Mary Fogarty, Mother of Burn Victim,Education, International Association of Fire

Lowell, Mass.Fighters, Washington, D.C.

Charles Morgan, President, National Fire Protec-David N. Francis, President, Fire Equipment Man-

ufacturers Association, Inc., Evanston, Ill.tion Association, Boston, Mass. Hon. Hugh Scott, Senator, Philadelphia, Pa.

FEBRUARY 16, 1972

Hon. George P. Miller, Congressman, Alameda,Calif.

James T. Lynn, Undersecretary of Commerce,Washington, D.C.

Herbert C. Yost, Director of Public Safety, Lan-caster, Pa.

Raymond Hill, Chief, Los Angeles City Fire De-partment, Los Angeles, Calif.

Truman G. Blocker, M.D., Burn Specialist, Galves-ton, Tex.

Melvin Stark? Vice President for Government Af-fairs, American Insurance Association, New York,N.Y:

Terry B. Hayes, Assistant Executive Secretary, FireMarshals Association of North America, Boston,Mass.

James R. Dowling, Director, Codes and Regula-tions Center, The American Institute of Archi-tects.

(New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.)FEBRUARY 17, 1972

Hon. J. Caleb Boggs, Senator, State of Delaware.Dr. Carl Walter, Chairman of the Fire Committee

of the National Academy of Sciences, Washing-ton, D.C.

Hon. Jerry L. Pettis, Congressman, State of Cali-fornia.

Henri O’Bryant, Jr., Clothing Manufacturer, LosAngeles, Calif.

Joseph Galvin, Fire Chief of Battalion 12, NewYork City Fire Department, New York, N.Y.

Gerald Maatman, President, National Loss Con-trol Services Corp., Long Grove, Ill.

Wilbur A. Sanders, Deputy Commissioner, PublicBuildings Service, General Services Administra-ton, Washington, D.C.

Lt. David Echols, Baltimore Fire Department, Bal-timore, Md.

Quinton Wells, Assistant Commissioner for Techni-cal and Credit Standards, Department of Housingand Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

\

Martin M. Brown, President, Society of Fire Pro-tection Engineers, Boston, Mass.

James Gaskill, Lawrence Radiation Laboratories,Livermore, Calif.

Fire Services

(Auditorium, Mercantile National Bank Building, Dallas, Tex., April 24-25, 1972)APRIL 24, 1972

Hon. John G. Tower, Senator, Wichita Falls, Tex.Merrcll 6. 1 lendrix, Chief, Dallas Fire Department,

Dallas, Tex.

Robert E. Smylie, Chief, Crew Systems Division,Manned Spacecraft Center, NASA, Houston,Tex.

David Gratz, Chief, Silver Spring Fire Depart-ment, Silver Spring, Md.

Dennis Smith, Douglas Court, Washingtonville,N.Y.

Mike B. Perez, Jr., Fire Chief, Laredo, Tex.

Earle A. Phillips, Project Director, Tank Car SafetyProject, Railway Progress Institute-Associationof American Railroads, Chicago, 111.

Martin Grimes, Director, Fire Service Division, Na-tional Fire Protection Association, Boston, Mass.

Dennis Parker, Fire Chief, Collegeville, Pa.

AMERICA BURNING 163

APRIL 25, 1972

Edwin N. Searl, Vice President, Insurance ServicesOffice, New York, N.Y.

C. J. Winquist, Vice President, Gage-Babcock & As-sociates, Inc., Westchester, 111.

John A. Rockett, Chief, Fire Services Section, FireTechnology Division, National Bureau of Stand-ards, Washington. D.C.

Matthew Jimenez, Chief, Hayward Fire Depart-ment, Hayward, Calif.

Henry Smith, Chief, Fireman Training School,Texas A. & M., College Station, Tex.

Harvey Ryland, General Research Corp., SantaBarbara, Calif.

Philip Stevens, Philip Stevens and Associates,Skaneateles, N.Y.

Fire and the Built Environment

(International Hotel, Los Angeles, Calif., June 27-28, 1972)

JUNE 27, 1972

Richard Patton, President, Patton Fire Protectionand Research, Inc., Phoenix, Ariz.

Dr. Thomas G. Bell, Executive Vice President,American Nursing Home Association, Washing-ton, D.C.

Richard E. Stevens, Director, Engineering Services,National Fire Protection Association, Boston,Mass.

Irving Einhorn, Professor, Material Science Engi-neering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

John Ed Ryan, Engineer, National Forest ProductsAssociation, Washington, D.C.

G. R. Munger, General Manager, J. P. Carroll,Manager, and J, G. Degenkolb, Code Consultant,Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., New York,N.Y.

Jasper Hawkins, Chairman of Codes and StandardsCommittee, American Institute of Architects, LosAngeles, Calif.

JUNE 28, 1972

Max L. Feldman, General Manager, and JerryMcLinn, Manager of Technical Services, TheSierra Group, Santa Barbara, Calif.

Merrill Butler, Member of Executive Committee,and Alan R. Trellis, Technical Services Division,National Association of Home Builders, Wash-ington, D.C.

John Degenkolb, Code Consultant, Glendale, Calif.T. II. Carter, Executive Director, International

Conference of Building Officials, Pasadena, Calif.

Robert E. Novick, Director, Health Services andMental Health Administration, Department ofHEW, Washington, D.C.

Kenneth Chan, Disney Enterprises, Glendale, Calif.Richard Houts, Chief Engineer, Los Angeles County

Fire Department, Los Angeles, Calif.Douglas R. Leisz and Richard Mylars, Forest Serv-

ice, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C.Lewis A. Moran, State Forester, and John Hastings,

California Division of Forestry, Sacramento,Calif.

(Fairmont Hotel, San Francisco, Calif.)

JUNE 30, 1972

Keith Calden, Chief, San Francisco Fire Depart- Thomas R. Simonson, Consulting Engineer, Sanment, San Francisco, Calif. Francisco, Calif.

W. G. Kirkland, Building Research Advisory Board, Jack A. Bono, Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc.,National Academy of Sciences, National Research Northbrook, Ill.

Council. Robert E. Bishop, Assistant State Fire Marshal,

.4lfred Goldberg, Superintendent of Building In-State of California.

spection, San Francisco, Calif.Dr. Robert Brady Williamson, Associate Professor

John M. Rhodes, Factory Mutual Research Corp.,of Engineering Science, University of California,

Norwood, Mass.Berkeley, Calif.

Edward J. Reilly, Vice President, National Auto-Richard G. Gewain, Chief Fire Protection Engineer,

matic Sprinkler and Fire Control Association,American Iron and Steel Institute, New York,N.Y.

Inc., White Plains, N.Y.

164 APPENDIX II

Fire Prevention

(Palmer House, Chicago, Ill., October 3-5, 1972)

OCTOBER 3, 1972

Curtis Volkamer, Chief, Chicago Fire Department,Chicago, Ill.

Doug Wendt, Doug Wendt Foundation, Fargo,N. Dak.

Charles Cohn, Technical Processes Division,Colonial Alloys Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

James W. Kerr, Staff Director, Support SystemsResearch Division, Defense Civil PreparednessAgency, Washington, D.C.

Rolf Jensen, Professor and Chairman, Illinois In-stitute of Technology, Chicago, Ill.

Ambrose B. Kelly, Retired General Counsel, Fac-tory Mutual Insurance System, Providence, R-1.

Robert E. May, Illinois State Fire Marshal, Divi-sion of Fire Prevention, Chicago, Ill.

OCTOBER 4, 1972

Professor Howard W. Emmons, Gordon McKay Barbara Hill, Teacher, Fremont Elementary School,Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Harvard Santa Ana, Calif.University, Cambridge, Mass. Jack B. Haskins, Chairman, Graduate Studies and

John O’Hagan, Chief of the New York City Fire Research, College of Communications, The Uni-Department, New York, N.Y. versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.

Leslie Fisher, Director, Burns Prevention Program, William Christian, Consulting Engineer, Under-Burns Care Institute, Albany, N.Y. writers’ Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, III.

Howard Boyd, Metropolitan Fire Marshal, Nash- Robert E. Duke, Chicago Chapter of the Societyville, Tenn. of Fire Protection Engineers.

OCTOBER 5, 1972

W. G. Schultz, CPCU, Vice President, Engineering Stanley Emery, Inspector, State Fire Marshal’s Of-Communications and Education, Lumberman’s fice, Concord, N.H.Mutual Insurance Co. of Mansfield, Mansfield, Joseph N. Baker, City Manager, Burbank, Calif.Ohio. John R. Corcoran, President of the New York So-

Ralf Hotchkiss, Center for Concerned Engineering, ciety of Fire Technologists, Newhurg, N.Y.Washington, D.C. Joseph A. O’Keefe, Director, Fire Science Programs,

James C. Robertson, State Fire Marshal, Depart- The Commomwealth of Massachusetts Board ofment of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Regional Community Colleges, Boston, hlass.OEce of the Fire Marshal, Baltimore, Md.

AMERICA BURNING 165

APPENDIX IIIACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contributing Agencies and Organizations

Office of Management and BudgetDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of CommerceDepartment of Health, Education, and WelfareDepartment of Housing and Urban DevelopmentDepartment of TransportationGeneral Services AdministrationNational Academy of Sciences

Boston, Massachusetts, Fire DepartmentChicago, Illinois, Fire DepartmentCincinnati, Ohio, Fire DepartmentDallas, Texas, Fire DepartmentDenver, Colorado, Fire DepartmentHuntington Beach, California, Fire DepartmentIndependence, Missouri, Fire DepartmentLos Angeles City, California, Fire DepartmentLos Angeles County, California, Fire DepartmentMetropolitan Dade County, Florida, Fire Depart-

mentMiami, Florida, Fire DepartmentMountain View, California, Fire DepartmentNew York City, New York, Fire DepartmentSan Francisco, California, Fire DepartmentSanta Ana, California, Fire DepartmentSarasota, Florida, Fire DepartmentSeattle, Washington, Fire DepartmentSilver Spring, Maryland, Fire DepartmentWashington, D.C., Fire Department

American Forestry AssociationAmerican Iron and Steel InstituteFactory Mutual SystemInsurance Services OfficeInternational Association of Black Professional Fire

FightersInternational Association of Fire ChiefsInternational Association of Fire FightersInternational City Management AssociationModel Building Code Groups

American Insurance AssociationBuilding Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc.International Conference of Building OfficialsSouthern Buildings Code Congress

National Association of Mutual Insurance Com-panies

National League of Cities

166 APPENDIX III

New York City Rand InstituteSierra GroupSociety of the Plastics Industry, Inc.Tall Timbers Research StationUnderwriters’ Laboratories, Inc.University of MarylandUniversity of Michigan Burn CenterUrban Institute

Consultants

Howery, Baker, Simon and Murchison, Attorneys AtLaw

National Fire Protection AssociationDr. Edwin G. Triner, Systems Management AnalystDavid B. Gratz, Fire Management Associates, Inc.Gordon F. Vickery, Retired Chief, Seattle Fire

DepartmentGage-Babcock and Associates, Inc.John Buck, editorJudy Harkinson, photographsJerry Dadds, designCenters for StudyAmbrose Kelly, Retired General Counsel, Factory

Mutual SystemProf. Irving Einhorn, University of UtahDr. R. B. Williamson, University of California,

Berkeley

Department Representatives

James Kerr-Department of DefenseRobert Novick-Department of Health, Education,

and WelfareWillard R. Tikkala-Department of AgricultureQuinton Wells-Department of Housing and Urban

DevelopmentDr. Karl Willenbrock-Department of Commerce

Picture Credits

Page 1 (opposite) -Bob Dean, Boston Globe.Page 3-Ron Moscati, Buffalo Courier-Express.Page 10-Shriners Burns Institute. Page 39-EliCanter, Santa Rosa Medical Center. Page 48-49-Richard Swanson, Black Star. Pages 56-57,60-Wide World Photos. Pages 62, 70, 73-NewYork Daily News. Pages 89, 90-UP1 Photos.Page 116-Wide World Photos. Page 129-NewYork Daily News. Page 146-New York Times,

APPENDIX IVRECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

CHAPTER 1

1 . . . . the Commission recommends that Con-gress establish a U.S. Fire Administration to providea national focus for the Nation’s fire problem andto promote a comprehensive program with adequatefunding to reduce life and property loss from fire.

2 . . . * the Commission recommends that a na-tional fire data system be established to provide acontinuing review and analysis of the entire fireproblem.

CHAPTER 2

3. The Commission recommends that Congressenact legislation to make possible the attainment of25 burn units and centers and 90 burn programswithin the next 10 years.

4. The Commission recommends that Congress,in providing for new burn treatment facilities, makeadequate provision for the training and continuingsupport of the specialists to staff these facilities.Provision should also be made for special trainingof those who provide emergency care for burn vic-tims in general hospitals.

5. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Institutes of Health greatly augment theirsponsorship of research on burns and burn treat-ment.

6. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Institutes of Health administer and support asystematic program of research concerning smokeinhalation injuries.

CHAPTER 3

7. The Commission recommends that local gov-ernments make fire prevention at least equal to sup-pression in the planning of fire department priori-ties.

8. The Commission recommends that communi-ties train and utilize women for fire service duties.

9. The Commission recommends that laws whichhamper cooperative arrangements among local firejurisdictions be changed to remove the restrictions.

10. The Commission recommends that everylocal fire jurisdiction prepare a master plan de-signed to meet the community’s present and futureneeds in fire protection, to serve as a basis for pro-gram budgeting, and to identify and implement theoptimum cost-benefit solutions in fire protection.

11. . . . the Commission recommends that Fed-eral grants for equipment and training be available

only to those fire jurisdictions that operate from afederally approved master plan for fire protection.

12. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration act as a coordinatorof studies of fire protection methods and assist localjurisdictions in adapting findings to their fire pro-tection planning.

CHAPTER 4

13. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration provide grants tolocal fire jurisdictions for developing master plansfor fire protection. Further, the proposed U.S. FireAdministration should provide technical advice andqualified personnel to local fire jurisdictions to helpthem develop master plans.

CHAPTER 5

14 . . . the Commission recommends that theproposed U.S. Fire Administration sponsor researchin the following areas: productivity measure of firedepartments, lob analyses, firefighter injuries, andfire prevention efforts.

15. . . the Commission urges the Federal re-search agencies, such as the National ScienceFoundation and the National Bureau of Standards,to sponsor research appropriate to their respectivemissions within the areas of productivity of fire de-partments, causes of firefighter injuries, effectivenessof fire prevention efforts, and the skills required toperform various fire department functions.

16. The Commission recommends that the Na-tion’s fire departments recognize advanced andspecialized education and hire or promote personswith experience at levels commensurate with theirskills.

17. The Commission recommends a program ofFederal financial assistance to local fire servircs toupgrade their training.

18. In the administering of Federal funds fortraining or other assistance to local fire departments,the Commission recommends that eligibility belimited to those departments that have adopted aneffective, affirmative action program related to theemployment and promotion of members of minoritygroups.

19. The Commission recommends that fire depart-ments, lacking emergency ambulance, paramedical.and rescue services consider providing them, es-pecially if they are located in communities wherethese services are not adequately provided by otheragencies.

AMERICA BURNING 167

CHAPTER 6

20. . . . the Commission recommends the estab-lishment of a National Fire Academy to providespecialized training in areas important to the fireservices and to assist State and local jurisdictions intheir training programs.

21. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed National Fire Academy assume the role ofdeveloping, gathering, and disseminating, to Stateand local arson investigators, information on arsonincidents and on advanced methods of arsoninvestigations.

22. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Fire Academy be organized as a division ofthe proposed US. Fire Admmistration, which wouldassume responsibility for deciding details of theAcademy’s structure and administration.

23. The Commission recommends that the fullcost of operating the proposed National Fire Acad-emy and subsidizing the attendance of fire servicemembers be borne by the Federal Government.

CHAPTER 7

24. The Commission urges the National ScienceFoundation, in its Experimental Research and De-velopment Incentives Program, and the NationalBureau of Standards, in its Experimental Technol-ogy Incentives Program, to give high priority to theneeds of the fire services.

25. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration review current prac-tices in terminology, symbols, and equipment de-scriptions, and seek to introduce standardizationwhere it is lacking.

26. The Commission urges rapid implementationof a program to improve breathing apparatus sys-tems and expansion of the program’s scope whereappropriate.

27. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration undertake a con-tinuing study of equipment needs of the fire services,monitor research and development in progress, en-courage needed research and development, dissem-inate results, and provide grants to fire departmentsfor equipment procurement to stimulate innovationin equipment desian.

28. . . . the Commission urges the Joint Coun-cil of National Fire Service Organizations to sponsora study to identify shortcomings of firefightingequipment and the kinds of research, development,or technology transfer that can overcome thedeficiencies.

CHAPTER 8

No recommendations.

CHAPTER 9

29. The Commission recommends that researchin the basic processes of ignition and combustion be

168 APPENDIX IV

strongly increased to provide a foundation for de-veloping improved test methods.

30. This Commission recommends that the newConsumer Product Safety Commission give a highpriority to the combustion hazards of materials intheir end use.

31. : . . the Commission recommends that thepresent fuel load study sponsored by the GeneralServices Administration and conducted by the Na-tional Bureau of Standards be expanded to updatethe technical study of occupancy fire loads.

32. The Commission recommends that flamma-bility standards for fabrics be given high priority bythe Consumer Product Safety Commission,

33. The Commission recommends that all Statesadopt the Model State Fireworks Law of the Na-tional Fire Protection Association, thus prohibitingall fireworks except those for public displays.

34. The Commission recommends that the De-partment of Commerce be funded to provide grantsfor studies of combustion dynamics and the meansof its control.

35. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Bureau of Standards and the NationalInstitutes of Health cooperatively devise and imple-ment a set of research objectives designed to pro-vide combustion standards for materials to protecthuman life.

CHAPTER 10

36. The Commission urges the National Bureauof Standards to assess current progress in fire re-search and define the areas in need of additionalinvestigation. Further, the Bureau should recom-mend a program for translating research resultsinto a systematic body of engineering principles and,ultimately, into guidelines useful to code writers andbuilding designers.

37. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Bureau of Standards, in cooperation with theNational Fire Protection Association and other ap-propriate organizations, support research to developguidelines for a systems approach to fire safety inall types of buildings.

38. . . . the Commission recommends that, inall construction involving Federal money, awardingof those funds be contingent upon the approval ofa fire safety systems analysis and a fire safety effec-tiveness statement.

39. This Commission urges the Consumer ProductSafety Commission to give high priority to matches,cigarettes, heating appliances, and other consumerproducts that are significant sources of burn in-juries, particularly products for which industrystandards fail to give adequate protection.

40. The Commission recommends to schools giv-ing degrees in architecture and engineering thatthey include in their curricula at least one coursein fire safety. Further, we urge the American Insti-tute of Architects, professional engineering soci-

eties, and State registration boards to implementthis recommendation.

41. The Commission urges the Society of FireProtection Engineers to draft model courses forarchitects and engineers in the field of fire protec-tion engineering.

42. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed National Fire Academy develop short coursesto educate practicing designers in the basics offire safety design.

CHAPTER 11

43. The Commission recommends that all localgovernmental units in the United States have inforce an adequate building code and fire preven-tion code or adopt whichever they lack.

44. The Commission recommends that local gov-ernments provide the competent personnel, train-ing programs for inspectors, and coordinationamong the various departments involved to en-force effectively the local building and fire preven-tion codes. Representatives from the fire depart-ment should participate in revielving the fire safetyaspects of plans for new building construction andalterations to old buildings.

45. The Commission recommends that, as themodel code of the International Conference ofBuilding Officials has already done, all model codesspecify at least a single-station early-warning de-tector oriented to protect sleeping areas in everydwelling unit. Further, the model codes shouldspecify automatic fire extinguishing systems andearly-warning detectors for high-rise buildings andfor low-rise buildings in which many peoplecongregate.

CHAPTER 12

46. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Transportation Safety Board expand itsefforts in issuance of reports on transportation acci-dents so that the information can be used to im-prove transportation fire safety.

47. The Commission recommends that the De-partment of Transportation work with interestedparties to develop a marking system, to be adoptednationwide, for the purpose of identifying trans-portation hazards.

48. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed National Fire Academy disseminate to everyfire jurisdiction appropriate educational materialson the problems of transporting hazardous materials.

49. The Commission recommends the extensionof the Chem-Tree system to provide ready accessby all fire departments and to include hazard con-trol tactics.

50. . . . the Commission recommends that theDepartment of the Treasury establish adequatefire regulations, suitably enforced, for the transpor-tation, storage, and transfer of hazardous materialsin international commerce.

51. The Commission recommends that the De-partment of Transpor ta t ion se t manda torystandards that will provide fire safety in privateautomobiles.

52. The Commission recommends that airportauthorities review their firefighting capabilities and,where necessary, formulate appropriate capital im-provement budgets to meet current recommendedaircraft rescue and firefighting practices.

53. The Commission recommends that the De-partment of Transportation undertake a detailedreview of the Coast Guard’s responsibilities, au-thority, and standards relating to marine fire safety.

54. The Commission recommends that the rail-roads begin a concerted effort to reduce rail-causedfires along the Nation’s rail system.

55. . . . the Commission recommends that theUrban Mass Transportation Administration requireexplicit fire safety plans as a condition for all grantsfor rapid transit systems.

CHAPTER 1356. . , . the Commission recommends that rural

dwellers and others living at a distance from fire de-partments install early-warning detectors andalarms to protect sleeping areas.

57. The Commission recommends that U.S. De-partment of Agriculture assistance to [communityfire protection facilities] projects be contingent uponan approved master plan for fire protection for localfire jurisdictions.

CHAPTER 14

58. . . . the Commission recommends that theproposed U.S. Fire Administration join with theForest Service, U.S.D.A., in exploring means tomake fire safety education for forest and grasslandprotection more effective.

59. The Commission recommends that the Coun-cil of State Governments undertake to developmodel State laws relating to fire protection in forestsand grasslands.

60. The Commission urges interested citizens andconservation groups to examine fire laws and theirenforcement in their respective States and to pressfor strict compliance.

61. The Commission recommends that the ForestService, U.S.D.A., develop the methodology to makepossible nationwide forecasting of fuel buildup as aguide to priorities in wildland management.

62. The Commission supports the developmentof a National Fire Weather Service in the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration and urgesits acceleration.

CHAPTER 15

63. The Commission recommends that the De-partment of Health, Education, and Welfare in-clude in accreditation standards fire safety educa-tion in the schools throughout the school year. Onlyschools presenting an effective fire safety education

AMERICA iURNING 169

program should be eligible for any Federal financialassistance.

64. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration sponsor fire safetyeducation courses for educators to provide a teach-ing cadre for fire safety education.

65. The Commission recommends to the Statesthe inclusion of fire safety education in programseducating future teachers and the requirement ofknowledge of fire safety as a prerequisite for teach-ing certification.

66. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration develop a program,with adequate funding, to assist, augment, andevaluate existing public and private fire safety edu-cation efforts.

67. . * . the Commission recommends that theproposed U.S. Fire Administration, in conjunctionwith the Advertising Council and the NationalFire Protection Association, sponsor an all-mediacampaign of public service advertising designed topromote public awareness of fire safety.

68. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed U.S. Fire Administration develop packetsof educational materials appropriate to each OCCU-pational category that has special needs or oppor-tunities in promoting fire safety.

CHAPTER 16

69. The Commission supports the OperationEDITH (Exit Drills In The Home) plan andrecommends its acceptance and implementationboth individually and community-wide.

70. The Commission recommends that annualhome inspections be undertaken by every fire de-partment in the Nation. Further, Federal financialassistance to fire jurisdictions should be contingentupon their implementation of effective home fireinspection programs.

71. The Commission urges Americans to protectthemselves and their families by installing approvedearly-warning fire detectors and alarms in theirhomes.

72. , . . the Commission recommends that theinsurance industry develop incentives for policy-holders to install approved early-warning fire de-tectors in their residences.

73. The Commission urges Congress to consideramending the Internal Revenue Code to permitreasonable deductions from income tax for thecost of installing approved detection and alarmsystems in homes.

74. * . . the Commission recommends that theproposed U.S. Fire Administration monitor theprogress of research and development on early-warning detection systems in both industry and gov-ernment and provide additional support for researchand development where it is needed.

75. The Commission recommends that the pro-posed US. Fire Administration support the develop-

170 APPENDIX IV

ment of the necessary technology for improved auto-matic extinguishing systems that would find readyacceptance by Americans in all kinds of dwellingunits.

76. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Fire Protection Association and the AmericanNational Standards Institute jointly review theStandard for Mobile Homes and seek to strengthenit, particularly in such areas as interior finish ma-terials and fire detection.

77. The Commission recommends that allpolitical jurisdictions require compliance with theNFPA/ANSI standard for mobile homes togetherwith additional requirements for early-warningfire detectors and improved fire resistance ofmaterials.

78. The Commission recommends that State andlocal jurisdictions adopt the NFPA Standard onMobile Home Parks as a minimum mode of protec-tion for the residents of these parks.

CHAPTER 17

79. The Commission strongly endorses the provi-sions of the Life Safety Code which require specificconstruction features, exit facilities, and fire de-tection systems in child day care centers and recom-mends that they be adopted and enforced immedi-ately by all the States as a minimum requirementfor licensing of such facilities.

80. The Commission recommends that early-warning detectors and total automatic sprinklerprotection or other suitable automatic extinguish-ing systems be required in all facilities for the careand housing of the elderly.

81. The Commission recommends to Federalagencies and the States that they establish mecha-nisms for annual review and rapid upgrading oftheir fire safety requirements for facilities for theaged and infirm, to a level no less stringent thanthe current NFPA Life Safety Code.

82. The Commission recommends that the specialneeds of the physically handicapped and elderly ininstitutions, special housing, and public buildings ,beincorporated into all fire safety standards and codes.

83. The Commission recommends that the Statesprovide for periodic inspection of facilities for theaged and infirm, either by the State’s fire marshal’soffice or by local fire departments, and also requireapproval of plans for new facilities and inspectionby a designated authority during and after construc-tion.

84. The Commission recommends that the Na-tional Bureau of Standards develop standards forthe flammability of fabric materials commonly usedin nursing homes with a view to providing the high-est level of fire resistance compatible with the state-of-the-art and reasonable costs.

85. The Commission recommends that politicalsubdivisions regulate the location of nursing homesand housing for the elderly and require that fire

alarm systems be tied directly and automatically tothe local fire department.

CHAPTER 18

86. The Commission recommends that the Fed-eral Government retain and strengthen its programsof fire research for which no non-governmental al-ternatives exist.

87. . . . the Commission recommends that theFederal budget for research connected with fire beincreased by $26 million.

88. . . . the Commission recommends that as-sociations of material and product manufacturersencourage their member companies to sponsor re-

search directed toward improving the fire safety ofthe built environment.

CHAPTER 19

89. . . . the Commission recommends that theproposed U.S. Fire Administration be located inthe Department of Housing and Urban Develop-ment.

90. The Commission recommends that Federalassistance in support of State and local fire serviceprograms be limited to those jurisdictions comply-ing with the National Fire Data System reportingrequirements.

CHAPTER 20

No recommendations.

AMERICA BURNING 171

APPENDIX V1971 FIRE LOSS DATA

Category

Life loss Property loss Fires

Number Percent Million Percent Number Percentof total Dollars of total of total

1 NFPA unofficial estimate for 1971.2 No separate estimates; totals included in other categories.3 No loss assumed for this type fire.4 NFPA official estimate for 1971.

172 APPENDIX V

APPENDIX VIMASTER PLAN FOR

Fire Protection Section

FIRE PROTECTION, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA

The community fire protection system includes pub-lic and private organizations, personnel, facilities,equipment, laws and policy, all coordinated for lifesafety and property protection from fire loss throughcontrol, detection and suppression of fire danger.The objective of the community fire protection sys-tem is to provide adequate level of fire protection ata reasonable community cost. Adequate fire protec-tion for Mountain View is that specific combinationof public and private resources which provide theservices and acceptable risks which meet the needsof this community.

Means of Fire ProtectionCommunity fire “protection” is a combination oftwo factors-Public Sector Protection and PrivateSector Protection.

Public Sector Fire Protection consists of the man-power and facilities supplied by the city. Tradi-tionally, the design of the system has reacted toproblems rather than planning to manage prob-lems. To be effective, the system must be designedin light of the community’s goals and capablhties.In addition to the job of fire suppression, publicprotection, to be most effective, must includestructural design review, control of hazardous con-tents, fire code enforcement, continuing inspec-tion, and coordination of building, planning, lawenforcement and public works activities as theyrelate to fire protection.Private Sector Fire Protection consists of fire resis-tive design of structures and materials, as well asfire extinguishing, warning, and detection systems.Fire resistive structural elements limit the size ofthe fire problem by dividing a structure into man-ageable fire areas. Through automatic detectionand suppression, built-in protection is intended tolimit the scope of the anticipated problem to thatwhich is manageable.

Fire insurance also serves an indirect function infire protection by compensation for losses. In addi-tion, the fire insurance industry evaluates the capa-bilities of cities to cope with conflagrations. TheInsurance Services Office maintains a 1 to 10 grad-ing system and establishes a basic insurance rate foreach city. In a Class 1 city fire insurance costs lessthan in a Class 10 city. Traditionally, cities have usedthis grading as the basis of their fire protection sys-tem design. Although the Grading Schedule pro-vides adequate guidelines for conflagration control,it is not intended to meet the total fire protection

planning needs of cities, since individual communitygoals and capabilities are not considered. The Cityof Mountain View will consider fire insurance ratesand upgrading as one of the economic benefits re-sulting from adequate fire protection.

Fire Losses and CostsThe number of fire department responses in Moun-tain View has grown in direct proportion to thepopulation with approximately 22 emergency callsper thousand persons over the past 10 years. In-creased concentration of people and goods, resultingfrom urbanization, has increased fire loss potentialand reduced the effectiveness of traditional publicfire protection methods. As concentration increases,building design, on-site automatic detection equip-ment, and private automatic and manual suppres-sion facilities are of greater importance to reducefire risk.

Along with increased fire losses, community costs,which include equipment and manpower, have alsorisen. With traditional community fire system de-signs, this trend of public cost can be expected tocontinue to increase in accord with urbanization.Only by planning for both public and private firecontrol responsibility can this trend be changed. Inthis plan, fire loss management is stressed as opposedto systems which merely react to new problems byadding more firefighting resources.

Reflex TimeThe concept of reflex time is useful in understand-ing the public and private sector responsibilities withrespect to fire risks. Reflex time is the total timewhich elapses between fire ignition and eventualextinguishment, and is illustrated on the next page.

Upon ignition, fire intensity grows rapidly. Whilethe rate of growth varies with the materials and con-ditions, a dangerous fire will climb quickly to a pointreferred to as “flashover,” the critical point for lifesafety and fire control. One of the primary objectivesof adequate fire protection is to control fires priorto flashover. Fire department response time can beestablished by the system design. Historically, thetime that elapses between ignition and alarm hasbeen uncontrolled and fire extinguishment com-menced only after arrival of firefighting forces. Withautomatic detection, a speedy alarm can be givenand response time of firefighting forces can be re-duced. With automatic suppression, fire danger canbe controlled prior to flashover, and frequently priorto the arrival of firefighting forces.

AMERICA BURNING I73

THE COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTIONPLANThe plan which emerges involves a combination ofpublic and private responsibilities. The city shall es-tablish a “normal firefighting capability” by build-ing a fire protection force and providing equipmentto cope with an anticipated fire risk. Standards willbe set to define the level of public fire protectionwhich is adequate to meet the normal needs at areasonable community cost. Above that anticipatedlevel of fire risk, built-in protection will be providedby the private sector. The community fire protectionsystem shall include necessary public ordinances,codes, structural design review, and code enforce-ment procedures. In addition, inspection and main-tenance programs are required to assure the reliabil-ity of built-in protection. Fires which exceed antici-pated severity will require the implementation ofemergency operations pians which include mutualaid with neighboring cities,

There is an insurance rating that is optimal forthis community at any point in time. The total com-munity cost of changing the rating will govern thedecision to change. In 1972 the Class 4 rating is op-timum; however, the fire insurance rating shall re-ceive continual evaluation and changes may besought to improve community benefits.

The figure on page 175 depicts the locationsand fire prevention service areas for the City of

174 APPENDIX VI

Mountain View fire stations, needed at full develop-ment. Distributed as shown, the stations provide afirst response and backup capability for fire suppres-sion and rescue. Fire stations in Palo Alto and LosAltos have also been shown, indicating the areas thatmay be served by mutual response agreements.These fire stations are highly visible communityfacilities which not only provide a base for firefight-ing and prevention but also provide general com-munity information and services.

The proposed plan is a balance of fire codes, fireprotection personnel, and capital improvements.Under this plan, it is anticipated that the fire depart-ment resources needed at full development will befive engine companies, two truck companies, onerescue company and a battalion chief. A Fire Pre-vention Bureau, Communications Division, Train-ing Divisions, and administrative staff are necessaryto provide specialized services to the communityand the department personnel.

Fire Station Locations

Fire stations provide many direct services withintheir assigned areas in addition to firefighting func-tions. Among these are fire prevention and hazardcontrol programs; fire safety education; and rescue,first aid and resuscitation service. Fire stations alsoprovide communications and a service point betweencity government and the community and, through

AMERICA BURNING 175

their strategic locations, they provide the quickestfeasible response to citizen requests for service.

Headquarters Fire Station at Villa and Frank-lin houses the administrative offices, the Commu-

nications Division and the Fire Prevention Bu-reau. The firefighting resources are: one enginecompany, one truck company, a rescue companyand battalion chief. An expanded facility will bedeveloped when funds are available.

Station 2 at the intersection of Grant andCuesta houses one engine company and one re-serve engine.

Station 3 at the intersection of Rengstorff andMontecito houses one engine company and onereserve hose wagon.

Station 4 on Whisman Road also includes thetraining facility and the city emergency operationscenter. This station houses an engine company anda reserve engine and reserve truck.

Station 5. Property for this future station 5has been purchased at Charleston and StierlinRoads. The construction of this station is relatedto the rate of development of the area north ofBayshore Freeway.The service areas extend beyond the city limits

to include areas of mutual response with adjoiningcommunities of Palo Alto and Los Altos. Fire sta-tions are highly visible community facilities and shallrepresent the city within the neighborhoods as wellas provide the base for fire services.

In order to implement the plan, the followingprograms shall be pursued :

1. Fire Suppression. Effective firefighting re-quires the training and maintenance of a widevariety of manpower skills combined into aneffective team. A high level of efficiency is es-sentials to the safety of the firefighter. Also es-sential are the facilities and apparatus neces-sary for use by the firefighters.

2. Life Safety/Paramedical Services. The firesystem shall have a rescue capability for emer-

gencies. This capability shall include first aid,resuscitation, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation,and coordination of command at catastrophicmedical incidents.

3. Fire Prevention. The fire system shall includebuilding design and construction plan review,built-in private fire equipment and buildinginspection, fire code enforcement, fire causeinvestigation, fire hazard control and fire codeupdating, in order to provide the required fireprotection reliability of built-in protection. Thefire system shall provide education in firesafety, fire protection consultation, home safetyprograms, and first aid training for the public.The bulk of the firefighter’s non-emergencytime will be devoted to fire prevention activi-ties. To assure the reliability of built-in fireprotection, a major commitment of fire depart-ment personnel for inspection is necessary.

4. Structural Rehabilitation. In coordinationwith other city departments, the fire depart-ment shall work to abate serious hazardsto health and safety caused by deterioratedstructures.

5. Regional Coordination. The capability tocope effectively and rapidly with major emer-gency incidents requires close coordination withand use of resources of neighboring jurisdic-tions. This includes sharing capabilities, facili-ties and equipment, standardization, opera-tional coordination communications, and logis-tical support.

6. Data Development. In order to better de-sign the system (and measure results), ade-quate base data and feedback on fire danger,building design and operation, fire cause, andfire prevention results are necessary. Emer-gency operations require an extensive “on line”data capability to enact efficient and safecontrol methods for fire and/or hazardousmaterials incidents.

176 APPENDIX VI

APPENDIX VIIESTIMATE U.S. FIRE RESEARCH FUNDS

Sponsor Program areaFunds

(thousand)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973-O-495-792

AMERICA BURNING 177