This document was scanned from hard copy to portable document format (PDF)

and edited to 99.5% accuracy. Some formatting errors not detected during the

optical character recognition process may appear.

This report may be freely used, duplicated, or published

in whole or in part, except the photographs, which may

not be reproduced without permission of the owner.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CARD NUMBER73-600022

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.

DEAR M R . P RESIDENT:

Transmitted with this letter is the final report of the National

Commission 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 the

greatest 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 are

scarred physically and emotionally by fire. Recommendations are presented

in this report which, if implemented, will significantly reduce this great toll.

The recommendations emphasize prevention of fire through

implementation of local programs. This is in keeping with the very nature

of the fire problem which is felt hardest at the community level. Additionally,

the recommendations emphasize built-in fire safety-measures which can

detect and extinguish fire before it grows large enough to cause

a major disaster.

We know our great Nation has the resources and technology presently

available to lessen the destructive impact of fire. We believe a continuing

Federal focus on the fire problem is a necessity. It is the earnest hope of the

members of this Commission that this report will provide helpful guidelines

for local, State, and national efforts to reduce the life and property loss

by destructive fire in the United States.

Sincerely,

RICHARD E. BLAND,

Chairman.


CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY MEMBERS

John W. Davis, Warren G. Magnuson,

Congressman, Georgia Senator, Washington

Jerry L. Pettis, Ted Stevens,

Congressman, California Senator, Alaska
THE STAFF

Howard D. Tipton, Executive Director

Professional Staff

John F. Christian, Deputy Director

Edward K. Budnick, fire protection engineer

detailed by General Services Administration

J. Thomas Hughes, fire protection engineer

detailed by Naval Ship Engineering Center

Eugene M. Sober, P. E. senior fire safety analyst

Joe Swartz, operations research analyst

detailed by National Bureau of Standards

Anthony E. Neville, writer

Clayton Willis, director of public affairs

Administrative Staff

Jane Sornberger, administrative assistant

Virginia Harr, secretary

Jo Ann Mackey, secretary

Pearlie Scott, secretary

Temporary Administrative and Research Staff

David Sergeant

Kenneth Richardson

Howard Markman

Lawrence McGinty

VII

INFORMATION UPDATE

Since AMERICA BURNING was originally published in 1973 some of the statistical information

presented has become outdated either through actual change, better data, or new methods of estimation.

The changes are:

Approximately 6,200 people die in fires in this country each year, including

fire fighters, not 12,000, as stated in the cover letter, and on pages x, 1 and

53. (Source: U. S. Fire Administration (USFA) Estimate, Based on the

National 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 on

NFIRS Data).

Direct property loss is currently estimated at $10,400,000,000 not 2,700,000

as given on page 2. (Source: USFA Estimate, based on NFIRS Data).

The cost of treating a severly burned individual can cost well over $100,000

rather than $60,000 as given on page 11. (Source: Office of Health Care

Finance, U. S. Department of Health & Human Services).

Clothing fire deaths range between 150 and 200 annually, not 3,000 as

shown 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 to

750 annually, not 4,260 as shown on page 85. (Source: USFA Estimate,

based on NFIRS Data).

U. S. Fire Administration

September, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter of Transmittal

The 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 Services

3 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 Environment

8 The Hazards We Have Created.

9 The Hazards Created Through Materials

10 Hazards Through Design,

1 1 Codes and Standards.

12 Transportation Fire Hazards.

Fire and the Rural Wildlands Environment

1 3 Rural Fire Protection.

14 Forest and Grassland Fire Protection.

Fire Prevention

1 5 Fire Safety Education.

1 6 Fire Safety for the Home,

17 Fire Safety for the Young, Old, and Infirm.

Programs for the Future

1 8 Research for Tomorrow’s Fire Problem.

1 9 Federal Involvement

20 What Citizens Can Do,

Minority Report

Appendixes

I Public Law 90-259, March 1, 1968

I I Hearing Witnesses.

III Acknowledgements.

IV List of Recommendations.

V 1971 Fire Loss Data,

VI Master Plan for Fire Protection, Mountain

VII Estimated U.S. Fire Research Funds

View, Calif.

Page

III

I V

V I

VII

X

1

11

17

27

33

41

45

53

61

71

79

85

93

97

105

117

127

133

139

147

151

160

163

166

167

172

173

177

IX
WHAT THIS REPORT IS ABOUT

The striking aspect of the Nation’s fire problem is

the indifference with which Americans confront the

subject. Destructive fire takes a huge toll in lives,

injuries, and property losses, yet there is no need to

accept those losses with resignation. There are many

measures--often very simple precautions-that can

be taken to reduce those losses significantly.

The Commission worked in a field where statistics are meager, but its estimates of fire’s annual

toll are reliable: 12,000 American lives, and more

than $11 billion in wasted resources. Annual costs

of fire rank between crime and product safety in

magnitude. These statistics are impressive in their

size, though perhaps not scary enough to jar the

average American from his confidence that “It will

never happen to me.” In a Washington hearing the

Commission heard testimony from the parents of

a J-year-old boy who caught fire after playing with

matches. They described the horror of the accident,

the anxiety while awaiting doctors’ reports, the long

weeks of separation during the critical phases of

treatment, the child’s agony during painful treatment, the remaining scars, and the many operations

that lie ahead. Multiply that experience by the

300,000 Americans who are injured by fire every

year, and consider, as we did, that it could easily

happen in your own family; then the Nation’s fire

problem becomes very immediate and very fearsome.

During its deliberations the. Commission uncovered many aspects of the Nation’s fire problem that

have not received enough attention-often through

indifference, often through ‘lack of resources. It

became clear that a deeper Federal involvement

was needed to help repair the omissions and help

overcome the indifference of Americans to fire

safety.

We felt strongly that fire prevention and control

should remain primarily local responsibilities. Local

governments-through codes and fire safety laws,

and through heavy investments in fire department

personnel and equipment-have shouldered the major burden of protecting citizens from fire and

should continue to do so. Those governments appreciate special local conditions and needs more

fully than an arm of the Federal Government

would be able to do. Roles for the Federal Government, in the Commission’s view, are appropriately

limited to lending technical and educational assistance to State and local governments, collecting and

analyzing fire information, regulating the flammability of materials, conducting research and development in certain areas, and providing financial assistance when adequate fire protection lies beyond a

community’s means.

To the extent these functions are being performed

at all, they are scattered among the Federal agencies.

The Commission feels there should be an entity in

the Federal Government where the Nation’s fire

problem is viewed in its entirety, and which encourages attention to aspects of the problem that have

been neglected. This same entity would serve as the

conduit for the inter-governmental cooperation that

is needed to combat the Nation’s fire problem. Accordingly, the Commission recommends the establishment of a United States Fire Administration in

the Department of Housing and Urban Development where the primary Federal responsibility exists

with local government. The US. Fire Administration would not swallow all the ongoing programs of

research and action, but would supplement them for

the sake of a more coherent effort to reduce the Nation’s fire losses. In this way, the special abilities of

each Federal agency would be utilized.

The following summarizes briefly some of the

aspects of the Nation’s fire problem which the Commission studied and which the U.S. Fire Administration, through encouragement or direct sponsorship, could help to solve :

• There needs to be more emphasis on fire prevention. Fire departments, many of which confine

their roles to putting out fires and rescuing its victims, need to expend more effort to educate children on fire safety, to educate adults through residential inspections, to enforce fire prevention

codes, and to see that fire safety is designed into

buildings. Such efforts need to be continuously

evaluated, so that the Nation can learn what kinds

of measures arc most effective in reducing the

incidence and destructiveness of fire.

l The fire services need better training and education. Training for firefighters and officers ranges

from excellent, as in some large cities, to almost

non-existent, as in many rural areas. Better training would improve the effectiveness of fire departments and reduce firefighter injuries. Better

education provides the key to developing leadership for fire prevention.

l Americans must be educated about fire safety.

Most destructive fires are caused by the careless

actions of people, largely through lack of concern

and ignorance of hazards, Many fires caused by

faulty equipment rather than carelessness could

X
be prevented if people were trained to spot the

faults before it’s too late. And many injuries and

deaths could be prevented if people knew how to

react to a fire, whatever its cause.

l In both design and materials, the environment in

which Americans live and work presents unnecessary hazards. The hazards of flames have been

studied and regulated to some extent, but recognition of the hazards of smoke and toxic gases has

come belatedly. Ironically, efforts to make materials fire-retardant may have increased the life

hazard, since the incomplete combustion of these

materials often results in heavy smoke and toxic

gases. While materials and products that present

unreasonable hazards should be banned, the Commission believes the major emphasis should be on

a labeling system (to be developed by the Consumer Product Safety Commission) for materials

and products, so that consumers, at the time of

purchase, know what risks are involved. The impact of new materials, systems, and buildings on

users and the community should be assessed during design stages, well before use. Careful analysis

and filing of a fire safety effectiveness statement

should permit recognition of faults before tragedy

strikes.

l The fire protection features of buildings need to

be improved. There is a need for automatic fire

extinguishing systems in every high-rise building

and every low-rise building in which many people

congregate. Economic incentives for built-in protection are not available today and should be provided. Many communities are without adequate

building and fire prevention codes, and many

nursing homes and other facilities for handicapped citizens are without adequate fire protection.

Perhaps most important, Americans need to be

encouraged to install early-warning fire detectors

in their homes where most fire deaths occur.

l Important areas of research are being neglected.

The state-of-the-art in firefighting, in treatment of

burn and smoke victims, in protecting the built

environment from combustion hazards, points to

the need for a major expansion of research and

development in these areas. Progress in most of

these areas is hindered by a lack of fundamental

understanding of the behavior of fire and its combustion products.

To encourage solutions to these problems, the

Commission has made recommendations in this report to a number of bodies: the American public,

the President, Congress, State and local governments, industries, professional organizations, and

agencies of the Federal Government. It has also

outlined important tasks for the proposed US. Fire

XI

Administration:

l to develop a comprehensive national fire data systern, which will help establish priorities for research and action ;

l to monitor fire research in both the governmental

and private sectors, to assist the interchange of

information, and to encourage research in areas

that have been neglected;

l to provide bloc grants to States so that local governments may develop comprehensive fire-protection plans, improve firefighting equipment, and

upgrade education of fire service personnel:

l to establish a National Fire Academy for the advanced education of fire service officers and for

assistance to State and local training programs;

l to undertake a major effort to educate Americans

in fire safety.

The Commission has also recommended the reinforcement of programs in other agencies, including: detection and alarm systems for federally assisted and insured housing, and built-in protection

loan insurance (Department of Housing and Urban

Development) ; extension of burn treatment facilities (Department of Health, Education, and Welfare) ; burn and smoke research (National Institutes

of Health) ; rural fire protection (Department of

Agriculture) ; and further research in the engineering-based technology programs of the National Bureau of Standards.

If these efforts are carried out we predict a 5 percent reduction in fire losses annually until the Nation’s losses have been halved in about 14 years. A

5 percent reduction in resource losses alone would

amount to $350 million in the very first full year,

which is considerably more than the annual costs

of the projected Federal involvement of $153 million annually, as discussed in Chapter 19.

T H he public members of the Fire Commission

represent the Nation’s firefighters, insurers, fire

equipment manufacturers, testing laboratories, and

other groups in the private sector concerned with

reducing the Nation’s fire losses. We reached the

conclusion that there must be a significant Federal

effort only after careful consideration of the shortcomings of present efforts to reduce fire losses in

the United States.

Many of the Commissioners have devoted their

careers to improving the Nation’s fire record. We

have become accustomed to public indifference to

the fire problem. But we hold the hope that this

attitude can be changed. It is our wish that this

report will provide a turning point, by reaching-if

only indirectly-the conscience of millions of

Americans.

1

THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

Fire! Hundreds of thousands of times a year, that

shout reverberates down hallways or the inner

recesses of the mind as Americans come face to

face with one of the most dreaded causes of death

and disfigurement. Ironically, for every American

who will confront flames or choking smoke this

year, there are hundreds who give the threat of

fire not a moment’s thought, who will continue to

take only the slightest precautions to guard against

fire.

Fire is a major national problem. During the

next hour there is a statistical likelihood that more

than 300 destructive fires will rage somewhere in

this Nation. When they are extinguished, more

than $300,000 worth of property will have been

ruined. At least one person will have died. Thirtyfour will be injured, some of them crippled or

disfigured for life.

Annually, fire claims nearly 12,000 lives in the

United States. Among causes of accidental death,

only motor vehicle accidents and falls rank higher,

Most of fire’s victims die by inhaling smoke or

toxic gases well before the flames have reached

them.

The scars and terrifying memories live on with

the 300,000 Americans who are injured by fire

every year. Of these, nearly 50,000 lie in hospitals

for a period ranging from 6 weeks to 2 years.

Many of them must return, over and over again,

for plastic and reconstructive surgery. Many never

resume normal lives.

The price of destructive fire in the United States

amounts, by conservative estimate, to at least

$11.4 billion a year (see Table 1-1 ) . Beyond calculation are the losses from businesses that must

close and from jobs that are interrupted or

destroyed.

In an America that has only lately grown conscious of its ecological responsibilities, there is a

need also to develop an awareness of fire’s role

as one of the greatest wasters of our natural

resources.

Appallingly, the richest and most technologically advanced nation in the world leads all the

major industrialized countries in per capita

deaths and property loss from fire. While differing

reporting procedures make international comparisons unreliable, the fact that the United States reports a deaths-per-million-population rate nearly

twice that of second-ranking Canada (57.1 versus

29.7) leaves little doubt that this nation leads the

other industrialized nations in fire deaths per

AMERICA BURNING 1
capita. Similarly, in the category of economic loss

per capita, the United States exceeds Canada by

one-third.

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

Property loss . . . . . . . $2,700,000,000

Fire department operations . . . 2,500,000,000

Burn injury treatment . . . . . 1,000,000,000

Operating cost of insurance

industry . . . . . . . . 1,900,000,000

Productivity loss . . . . . . 3,300,000,000

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

Among those paying most heavily for this poor

record are the Nation’s firefighters. Theirs is the

most hazardous profession of all. Their death rate

is 15 percent greater than the next most dangerous

occupations, mining and quarrying. In 1971, the

injury rate for firefighters was 39.6 per 100 menfar higher than that of any other profession. That

same year, 175 firefighters died in the line of

duty; an additional 89 died of heart attacks and

26 are known to have died of lung disease contributed to by the routine smoke hazard of their

occupation.

While many firefighters, particularly in smaller

departments, do not have adequate opportunities

for training, the fact is that the best training available does not obliterate the risks that firefighters

must take in the line of duty. Every fire is a gamble

with the unknown, a venture into a unique complex of combustible materials and fire dynamics.

Risk substitutes for certainty, intuition for firm

knowledge. As the Committee on Fire Research

of the National Research Council pointed out in

1959, “growth in our knowledge of how to cope

with fire has not kept pace” with the growth of the

fire problem. This basic force of nature has attracted little interest in the scientific community,

and its elementary characteristics remain mysteries. To cite an unanswered practical question,

posed in the Committee’s 1969 report: “When

should the top of a building be opened by firefighters to minimize spread; when does opening

it increase the spread ?” Every fire chief, of course,

has to answer that question many times at many

fire scenes, based on his training and experience.

But little fundamental research has been performed to make one chief’s answer better informed than another’s.

America’s poor fire record, and its failure to

marshal enough scientific and monetary resources

to improve the record, concerns those who work

in the field of fire protection. Firefighters, individually and through such organizations as the

International Association of Fire Fighters and the

International Association of Fire Chiefs, have

been outspoken on the need to improve fire protection. The insurance industry, fire equipment

manufacturers, fire research scientists, code officials, government administrators : Each of these

groups has sought to improve the Nation’s performance in combating the fire problem. For

three-quarters of a century, the National Fire Protection Association, representing a variety of interests, has compiled an excellent record in public

education and in the setting of standards for

fire safety.

Causes of America’s Fire Problem

The efforts of individuals and organizations in

the, fire protection field have run against the twin

tides of ignorance and indifference-tides which

contribute substantially to the extraordinary magnitude of the fire problem in the United States.

While genuine economic problems often stand

in the way of deeper investment in fire protection,

lack of understanding of fire’s threat helps to account for the low priority given fire protection.

And while those who have survived a fire never

forget its destructive potential, for most Americans fire appears a remote danger that justifies

indifference.

But indifference exists where it is least excusable. For example, there are those in the fire

services who are unaware of the technological

state-of-the-art in their field. There are fire department administrators who pay lip service to

fire prevention and then do little to promote it.

The public shares their unconcern, for in the public’s image-an image which firefighters sharethe fire department is a heroic-proportioned battalion of people rescuers and fire suppressers, not a

professional corps of fire preventers.

Designers of buildings generally give minimal

attention to fire safety in the buildings they design. They are content, as are their clients, to meet

the minimal safety standards of the local building

code. Often both assume that the codes provide

completely adequate measures rather than mini2 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 and

occupants see fire as something which will never

happen to them, as a risk they will tolerate because fire prevention measures can be costly, or

as a risk adequately balanced by the provisions

of a fire insurance policy. Product designers, too,

give little thought to possible toxic or fire-aggravating effects should their products become involved in a fire.

The Federal Government also has been largely

indifferent to the fire problem. The Federal programs that exist (some of which are excellent)

touch only small portions of the total fire

problem.

Lastly, the American public is indifferent to

and ignorant of the heavy toll of destructive fire.

The problem has not reached the American consciousness with the same force as, for example, the

far less lethal problem of air pollution. In contrast,

poliomyelitis, which in the peak year of 1952 killed

about a third as many people as died by fire in

that year, has been virtually eradicated because

of the public attention it received. Moved by the

sight of crippled children, Americans dug into

their pockets to support research and control programs to attack the polio problem. Little concern

has come forth regarding the grave losses to the

Nation by fire.

Indifferent to fire as a national problem, Americans are similarly careless about fire as a personal

threat. There is an old saying in the fire protection

field, to the effect that fires have three causes:

men, women, and children. It takes the careless or

unwise action of a human being, in most cases, to

begin a destructive fire. In their home environments, Americans live their daily lives amid

flammable materials close to potential sources of

ignition, Though Americans are aroused to issues

of safety in consumer products, fire safety is not

one of their prime concerns. Few private homes

have fire extinguishers, much less fire detection

systems. Too few multiple-family dwellings and

institutions have automatic equipment for extinguishing fires. And often when fire strikes,

ignorance of what to do leads to panic behavior

and aggravation of the hazards, rather than to

successful escape.

Fire accidents due to carelessness occupy a

vast middle portion of the spectrum of mancaused fires. At one end of the spectrum are the

4 THE NATION’S FIRE PROBLEM

fires that are caused by the relatively helpless in

our 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 under

5 and the elderly over 65 is three times that of

the rest of the population. Though together these

young and old make up only 20 percent of the

American population, they account for 45 percent of the fire deaths.

In contrast to the fire accidents difficult to prevent are the fires set on purpose. In 1971, among

fires reported to the National Fire Protection

Association, about 7 percent were classified as incendiary; an additional 17 percent were “of unknown 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 many

large cities, fire chiefs believe that almost half of

all fires in their experience have been deliberately

set.

Fire has always held an attraction for demented thrillseekers. That fire is a way of attacking authority is indicated by the fact that in 1971

26 percent of the large-loss school fires and

44 percent of the large-loss church fires were

incendiary.

First cousin to the maliciously set fire is the

false alarm. In large cities, it is not uncommon for

false alarms to constitute 20 to 30 percent of all

calls for service (excluding ambulance requests),

In Boston false alarms in 1972 occurred on the

average of one every 45 minutes.

Not all deliberately set fires stem from malice

or thrillseeking; an increasing number are set for

profit. A number of building owners have been

setting their properties afire to reap insurance benefits and tax write-offs in excess of market value,

delinquent taxes, or demolition costs. In the

troubled city of Newark, N.J., where the number

of vacated buildings increased by 300 percent

between 1965 and 1971, the number of fires in

these structures increased by over 500 percent.

There is evidence that the Fair Access to Insurance

Requirements (FAIR) plan, designed to provide

insurance on properties not qualified under normal company standards, is being used by some

owners of deteriorating buildings to burn for

profit.
Social Changes Affecting the Fire Problem

That there is not an all-out war against arson and

false alarm again reflects national indifference toward destructive fire. Partly because of this national indifference, and partly because rapid

changes in American society have created other

problems, our approaches to ‘the fire problem are

not adequate to meet the needs of today. They

suffer what anthropologists call “cultural lag”;

our methods of handling the fire problem are attuned to the America of yesteryear-not to contemporary needs, much less to future needs. They

have changed slowly, while America has been

changing rapidly.

It doer; not follow that the increasing lag has

led to increasingly inadequate fire protection. For,

as the National Fire Protection Association has

documented, our Nation’s dollar losses from fire

(adjusted for inflation) have not worsened materially over the years. The percentage of national

wealth destroyed by fire has actually been decreasing by a very small extent. What follows is that,

if the Nation’s fire record is to improve significantly, our methods of protection against fire losses

must respond, more effectively than they have

thus far, to important changes that have been

taking place in America.

One such trend is the increasing urbanization

of the United States. Half a century ago, about

half our population lived in urban areas. Today,

about three out of four Americans do. While distances from firehouse to fire site are generally

shorter in urban areas than in rural areas, clogged

city streets often add costly minutes to response

time when a fire breaks out. Intensive use of land

in urban areas means bigger buildings, which

create complex problems of fire safety. More people are concentrated and exposed to the threat of

fire or its toxic smoke. High-rise buildings, though

hallmarks of urban progress, are special nightmares to firefighters. Upper floors are hard to

reach, and it is difficult to vent heat and smoke in

modern air-conditioned buildings.

Urbanization has created social problems-the

migration of the poor into cities, the expansion of

ghettos, the rising expectations of minorities which

are being met only laggardly---that have affected

the magnitude of fire losses. The most rundown

neighborhoods, where dilapidated buildings are

tinder boxes, are where the poor are forced to live.

The crowded apartment houses and tenement

buildings often reflect total indifference to fire

safety, because landlords see no benefit in decent,

long-term upkeep of their properties. Tenants

must often warm their rooms with dangerous portable or make-shift heaters because central heating

is inoperable or nonexistent, Discontent in the

ghettos can breed problems for fire departments:

in the form of riots, set fires, false alarms, and

harassment of firefighters.

The movement of America’s minorities for recognition of their rights has forced upon us the

realization that fire departments are, in general,

manned disproportionately by white Americans.

Racial minorities are under-represented in the fire

departments in nearly every community in which

they live.

Another social change pertinent to the Nation’s

fire protection is the increased militancy of municipal employees. Firefighters have seen what unionization has done for the salaries and benefits of

other city employees. They have seen conditions

improve for other municipal departments while

they have been bypassed. Quite understandably

they have petitioned for higher wages and better

working conditions. In the past half-dozen years,

in some of the larger cities, they have also undertaken job actions-slowdowns, massive sick leaves,

and even a few strikes-which jeopardized fire

protection for the community.

The increasing militancy of firefighters meets,

head on, another important change: the increasing financial plight of local governments. Especially in the large cities, but not exclusively there,

governments are facing static or declining tax

revenues, increasing costs, and hence the need to

question all city expenditures and to place greater

emphasis on the efficient operation of municipal

services. Local governments are demanding better

long-range planning and better utilization of manpower and equipment. They are pressing fire. departments to produce sophisticated cost-benefit

justifications for their expenditures. They are

demanding that fire departments operate more

efficiently without jeopardizing the public’s safety

from fire.

This makes pertinent a further trend in our

society: the increasing application of management science to solve these local problems. Local

governments are calling in research experts to reAMERICA 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 systems

approaches that have worked so well in industry.

Still another important change bearing on the

Nation’s fire protection is the so-called technological revolution. Our man-made environment is being filled with new materials and new products

about which little is known concerning their hazard potential when they burn. New chemicals

and other hazardous materials are being produced, shipped, and used around the country.

Often fire departments are unaware of these dangers in their midst, nor have they experience in

dealing with them. Some of these new products

produce toxic gases while burning that are far

more deadly than the kinds of smoke firefighters

are accustomed to.

About the technological revolution it can also

be said that it has hardly touched the fire services.

In comparison with such fields as aviation, largescale construction, and electronics, the technology

of firefighting has been relatively stagnant. Ironically, while flammability standards have been imposed on children’s sleepwear, no such standards

exist for firefighters’ “turnout” coats.

Prevention Needs Priority

Response to important social changes is a key to

improving the Nation’s record in fire protection.

A consideration of equal importance is the need

to change priorities in the field of fire protection.

Currently, about 95 cents of every dollar spent on

the fire services is used to extinguish fires; only

about 5 cents is spent on efforts-mostly fire prevention inspections and public education programs-to prevent fires from starting. Much more

energy and funds need to be devoted to fire prevention, which could yield huge payoffs in lives

and property saved. (While fire prevention efforts

would lower the incidence of fire and, hence,

might lower the costs of fire suppression, it would

be essential to support fire suppression services at

current levels until a marked reduction in fires had

been documented.)

The Role of This Commission

The National Commission on Fire Prevention

and Control was funded by Congress in 1971 to

study the fire problem and make recommendations “whereby the Nation can reduce the destruction 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, defined

a number of areas for our study. We rephrase

them here as questions: What technological advances, construction techniques, and improved

inspection procedures would prevent fires most

effectively? Is the Federal Government doing all

it should to lessen the danger of destructive fires

in federally assisted housing and in the redevelopment of the Nation’s cities and communities? Are

existing methods for suppressing fires adequate?

Are the procedures for recruiting personnel adequate? Are firefighters receiving sufficient training? Are current fire communication techniques

adequate? Does firefighting equipment need

improvement? Standardization? Are there administrative problems affecting the efficiency or

capabilities of fire departments? Finally, how

should responsibilities for reducing fire losses be

distributed among Federal, State, and local

governments?

In pursuit of answers, the Commission has held

hearings in five widely scattered cities, heard the

testimony of more than 100 witnesses filling

thousands of pages of transcript, and spent countless hours learning and deliberating in both formal and informal sessions. In addition, special

studies have been prepared by Commission staff

and by a dozen experts from government and

private groups exploring particular problems and

their alternative solutions. Over 130 position

papers were filed with the Commission advocating different approaches to the fire problem.

How Fire Safe Could We Be?

Congress established this Commission out of a

conviction that- present rates of losses in life and

property by fire in the United States need to be

reduced. The question naturally arises: What

level of losses is acceptable? For us to set as a

goal a total end of destruction of life and property

by fire would be unrealistic.

An acceptable goal, however, can be based on

the allocation of an appropriate part of our national resources. The goal of saving lives, of

course, is inherently worthy of pursuit. But one

way of defining a minimal appropriate level of

Government investment is to find that level which

will 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 compare the severity of the fire problem relative to

other important problems competing for resources, such as crime and death on the highway.

This Commission believes that a reduction of

50 percent in deaths, injuries, and property losses

is quite possible within the next generation. This

can be attained by a declining balance reduction

of 5 percent per year. To that end, we have

recommended a number of actions that can be

taken by government and industry at little or no

cost. But we also see the necessity, if that goal

is to be achieved, of Federal assistance averaging

$150 million annually over the next 5 years. 

This 5 percent drop per year in fire losses over

the 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 subsidized medical care, this might save the Federal Government $30 million.)

Federal Action is Needed

While the Commission’s stated goals for fire reduction might be argued, it is indisputable that

the Federal Government must at some cost help

the Nation attack the fire problem if any significant reduction in fire losses is to be achieved. It

must help devise educational programs so that

Americans can prevent fires and cope with them
when they occur. It must help provide better

training and equipment for firefighters. It must

assist an accelerated and coordinated effort in

research on the fire problem.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends

that Congress establish a United States Fire Administration to provide a national focus for the

Nation’s fire problem and to promote a comprehensive program with adequate funding to reduce life and property loss from fire.

Details of the responsibilities we envision for

the U.S. Fire Administration, and of its relations

to existing Federal agencies, will emerge in subsequent recommendations. It is sufficient to say

here that we would not want the proposed U.S.

Fire Administration to swallow or supplant ongoing programs of research and action. The function of the Administration would be to help guide

efforts, by keeping local, State, and Federal

agencies informed of related efforts in both the

private and public sector, encouraging cooperation, and promoting interest in areas of research

or action that have been neglected.

Many of our recommendations call for augmented programs and new efforts by State and

local governments. We recognize that many of

these governments are unable to undertake new

expenditures in fire protection without Federal

help. Thus we envision the new Fire Administration as also being a grant-making agency in the

field of fire protection, similar in concept to the

Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

The Need for Fire Data

One other function of the proposed U.S. Fire

Administration deserves special emphasis : to

help place solutions to the fire problem on a

firmer foundation of scientific data.

Time and again-in listening to testimony, in

studying the fire problem, in searching for solutions-this Commission found an appalling gap

in data and information that effectively separated

us from sure knowledge of various aspects of the

fire problem. The lack was not total; the National Fire Protection Association, for example,

collects valuable data on a voluntary basis from

the fire services. Other valuable studies have been

conducted by the National Bureau of Standards,

the Committee on Fire Research of the National

Research Council, and a number of insurance

companies. But in many areas of the fire problem, proposed solutions rest on limited experience, shaky assumptions, and guesswork,

Cost-effective solutions to the fire problem will

require a lot more data-broader in scope and

deeper in detail than now exist. This is not a onetime need. Continuing data collection will be

needed to measure the effectiveness and impact

of new programs in fire protection and to identify

emerging problems in the field.

Accordingly, the Commission recommends

that a national fire data system be established to

provide a continuing review and analysis of the

entire fire problem. In addition to filling in current gaps in understanding of the fire problem,

the system could ensure against duplication of

effort by data-gatherers in both the public and

private sectors. (In this connection we note that

the National Fire Protection Association has developed the most broad-based and thorough data

system; it would be appropriate for the Government to utilize the NFPA surveys as part of its

larger effort in data-gathering.) Since the proposed U.S. Fire Administration could not perform its functions effectively without adequate

data, it is altogether logical to house responsibility

for administering a national fire data system

within that Administration.

AMERICA BURNING 9

2

LIVING VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY

Fire kills. But fire has its living victims too: those

who grieve the loss of loved ones killed by fire,

those who manage to get out alive (while others

close to them may not have), those who are left

homeless or jobless or impoverished because of

fire. The victims most poignant to consider are

those maimed and disfigured by burn injuries.

About half of these victims are children. Their

scars, psychological as well as physical, often last

a lifetime.

Among the illnesses and injuries that require

long hospitalization, few are as traumatic as severe

burns. The frightening circumstances of the injury, the long isolation from family, the feeling

of helplessness, the continuous pain during recovery, the cosmetic operations that fall far short of

expectations, the stigma of disfigurement--all

contribute to a deep despondency that impairs

recovery.

Often the patient is not the only one to endure

psychological wounds. If the victim is a child, parents are likely to feel guilty for what has happened. Some parents find it impossible to accept

and love a disfigured child. Nurses, who must inflict considerable pain on the patient over long

periods of treatment, are subject to stress. In many

burn care facilities there is a 100 percent turnover

in nursing staff every 6 months.

The Long Road to Rehabilitation

The average hospital stay for a burn victim is over

three times that of medical and surgical patients.

An individual’s hospital stay and later treatment

can add up to $60,000 or more. (Reducing fire

accidents, therefore, should be among the top priorities in the national effort to control health care

costs. )

If the severely burned patient is fortunate, he

or she will be treated in one of a dozen “burn

centers” in the United States. In these special

facilities, patients receive expert medical and surgical care from the outset, and physical and emotional rehabilitation through the long weeks of

recovery. The process can be described through

an actual case history:

It is the fall of 1970. Eight-year-old Susan and

her older brother are playing in their garage. An

unsealed can of gasoline tips over and, an instant

AMERICA BURNING 11
later, the pilot light of the nearby water heater

ignites the vapor. In the flash fire and explosion,

Susan’s face and arms are badly burned, her dress

set afire. She is rushed to a local emergency room,

where she is treated for shock. Because the burns

are extensive and predominantly third degree (the

most severe kind), the doctors arrange for her

admission to a burn center, 100 miles away.

There, intensive care begins. The wounds are

cleaned and treated with antibacterial agents; intravenous lines are inserted; and a catheter is

placed into the bladder to collect urine, which

serves 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 rejecting grafts for 5 weeks. They would leave

him in one position as long as the graft seemed

to take, then they would turn him over and try

grafting 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. He

wouldn’t speak to us. He would turn his face to

the wail. . . .

“We were able to touch him through plastic

gloves only. We were not able to touch him at

all 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 to

walk all over again. Being bedridden for that

amount of time, he was extremely weak. He

was very bent over at this particular time because the folds were burned right around his

hips and in the groin area, As time went on the

scar tissue was contracting, pulling down. . . .

“This [indicating brace] Todd wears for his

nap and also at nighttime. When he first came

home, we tried everything to keep this on his

legs. We had restraints made ourselves. We

would spend an average of an hour a night

getting him into this splint, because it was very

important that his knees remain straight so that

his hip would be flat. . . .

“[Before applying ointment] you have to take

the scab off that forms, so that the wound will

not heal on the outside and stay open underneath. So you have to pick this off your child’s

skin 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 from

smoke inhalation injury. Later she is anesthetized

and wheeled into surgery, where a doctor begins

debridement, the cutting away of burned tissue.

The wounds are covered with antibiotic dressing, and Susan is given penicillin to ward off

infection.

More debridement operations follow. Doctors

and nurses continue to monitor closely Susan’s

fluid management and the functioning of her vital

organs. On the third day, having survived the

acute phase in which fluid imbalances can be

fatal, Susan is taking food by mouth, and the

intravenous lines are removed. For the first time,

she complains of pain from her wounds.

On the seventh day there is a marked change

in Susan. She refuses food, she is unruly. But the

staff members have seen this kind of behavior

often, for it signals the onset of guilt or fear of

parental reaction about the accident. After conferring with staff, Susan’s parents discuss the accident, assuring her they were concerned but not

angry. Her mood soon brightens. But there will

be other periods of irritability. Having less than

the normal amount of skin is a depressing condition, and it is common for patients to be difficult,

irascible, or complaining until the wounds heal

or are successfully skin-grafted.

During the second and third weeks, operations

are performed to remove further dead skin. AS SO

often happens, the wounds become infected and

for a time her life is in jeopardy. In the fourth

week grafting operations begin-four in all, staged

at 1O-day intervals. Between operations, Susan undergoes intensive physical therapy, since grafted

skin tends to contract and hamper the body’s

movements. Despite all precautions, contractures

of her neck, right wrist, and right hand begin to

develop, drawing her chin toward her chest, her

wrist 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 4

months for reconstructive surgery.

More plastic surgery awaits her. It will never

totally erase the scars. And despite the efforts of

the psychiatrist on the burn center staff, Susan still

carries 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 general

hospitals in the United States provide specialized

burn care. Together these few hospitals treat only

8 percent of the Nation’s patients with serious

burn injuries.

Of the burn centers like the one that treated

Susan, there are only 12 in the United States.

These are separate hospital facilities with research

and teaching programs as well as patient care.

Typically, a burn center employs a large staff of

general, orthopedic, and plastic surgeons, specially

trained nurses and physical therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and others who

mount a coordinated effort to treat all aspects of

the patient’s problem.

The difference between the treatment in burn

centers and the treatment in most hospitals can be

a matter of life or death. For example, of all the

2-year-olds treated in hospitals for second- and

third-degree burns over 45 percent of the body,

only one in ten survives. Of the small proportion

of these children who are lucky enough to be

treated in burn centers, more than six out of ten

survive. Among 8-year-olds suffering second- and

third-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 burn

centers, 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 than

most hospitals, they also expend more effort on

rehabilitation-psychological and vocational as

well as physical.

There is obviously a great need for additional

burn centers in the United States. There is also

a need for less elaborate facilities to handle less

serious cases. Presently there are 20 hospitals in

the Nation with “burn units”--that is, specialized

facilities of at least four beds used only for burn

victims. An additional 46 hospitals are known to

have “burn programs”-a staff of burn injury

specialists but not separate facilities.1

The Commission recommends that Congress

enact legislation to make possible the attainment of 25 burn units and centers and 90 burn

programs within the next 10 years. These burn

treatment facilities should be located where they

are most needed-that is, close to populations

with high incidence of burn injuries. The number

of facilities we have recommended is far fewer

than the number some experts say are needed, but

we believe that other measures we recommend in

this report could significantly reduce the number

of burn injuries and, hence, the need for costly

treatment.

The Need for Specialists and Research

If these added facilities were available tomorrow,

they would be of little value without dedicated

physicians, nurses, and other professionals to staff

them. Considering physicians alone, the hard reality is that there is little incentive to specialize in

burn treatment. A disproportionate number of

burn patients come from lower income families

who cannot afford to pay the bills for treatment.

And that treatment is expensive. Clearly, the

needs of burn patients will never be adequately

met unless the treatment is heavily subsidized.

The Commission recommends that Congress, in

providing for new burn treatment facilities, make

adequate provision for the training and continuing support of the specialists to staff these

facilities. Provision should also be made for special training of those who provide emergency

care for burn victims in general hospitals.

‘I. Feller, and K. H. Crane, “Classification of Burn

Care Facilities in the United States,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Jan. 18, 1971.

14 LIVING VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY

The most experienced specialists in burn treatment are quick to admit that the state-of-the-art

is limited by lack of knowledge. For example, understanding of the fluid shifts and transfusion requirements in burn patients is limited. There is

uncertainty among medical scientists about the

best techniques for warding off infection, a major

killer of burn patients. How burn injuries affect

a patient’s immunity is another matter little

understood.

In fiscal year 1972, the National Institutes of

Health spent about $1.25 million on research connected with burns and their treatment. The Social

Rehabilitation Service of the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare spent an additional $380,000 on special studies having to do

with the rehabilitation of burn patients.

In contrast, NIH spent $34 million on renal disease research, $16 million on studies of hypertension, and $5.5 million on hepatitis research.

(Renal diseases claim about 9,000 lives every

year; hypertensive heart disease about 16,000;

there are about 54,000 cases of hepatitis every

year, few of them fatal.)

The Commission recommends that the National Institutes of Health greatly augment their

sponsorship of research on burns and burn

treatment. A minimal and very realistic goal

would be $3 million, which would correspond

with an investment of $10 per year for each of

the 300,000 Americans who are injured by fire

each year.

Another aspect of the fire injury problem,

largely overlooked for many years, urgently needs

research investigation : smoke inhalation injury.

More than half--53 percent-of victims succumbing at the scene of a fire die a a result of

inhaling the products of combustion. Of those

who live long enough to reach the hospital, 42

percent succumb from inhalation injury.’

Surprisingly, even some of the simplest questions remain to be answered. Which are the best

simple methods for a person in a fire to protect

himself from smoke inhalation? What really does

the damage to the lungs? How does smoke inhalation 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 Principal Killer of the Burn Patient,” Annuls of Surgery, January 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 scene

of the fire could counteract the effects of irritants?

These and other questions deserve more attention than they have received. The Commission

recommends that the National Institutes of

Health administer and support a systematic program of research concerning smoke inhalation

injuries. At a minimum, NIH should receive an

additional $250,000 in the coming fiscal year for

this purpose.

A Final Word

Accidents happen-but not randomly. There is

increasing evidence from research that deep emotional disturbances lead to accident-proneness. In

one study of children with burn injuries, personality disorders (such as delinquency) and family

disorders (such as alcoholism and strained marriages) were found to be commonplace conditions prior to the accidents.”

Strengthening of affection in American families, it can be inferred, would do much to counteract the problem of fire injuries. That imperative

lies beyond our powers to recommend, but not

beyond our fervent hopes.

3

 Robert T. Long and Oliver Cope, “Emotional Problems

of Burned Children,” New England Journal of Medicine,

264: 1121-1127, 1961.

AMERICA BURNING 15

THE FIRE SERVICES

3

ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

Smoke is pouring from the windows of a vacant

apartment on the third floor of a tenement. A

passerby runs to the nearest fire alarm box and

pulls the lever. Instantly a gong sounds in the

fire station eight blocks away, the pattern of its

ringing indicating the location of the alarm box.

Firefighters jump into their heavy boots, don their

helmets and canvas coats, and sprint aboard a

pumper. Other men board the ladder truck sitting

next to the pumper. In less than a minute after

the sounding of the gong, the pumper and the

truck are racing down the street toward the fire,

their sirens wailing. Simultaneously, engines from

other fire stations head toward the fire.

This is a scene that is repeated hundreds of

times a year in every city. Except that internal

combustion engines have replaced horses, this is

the way fire departments have responded to fires

for as long as anyone can remember. Seldom does

the question arise : Is this the best way to respond?

It is the duty of every fire department to save

lives and reduce injuries and property losses when

fires occur. Our Nation’s record in each of these

areas needs vast improvement. Because human

carelessness accounts for most fires, it is the public,

not the fire departments, that must shoulder the

major burden of improving the Nation’s fire record. Moreover, the vast majority of firefighters

are volunteers who take grave risks without compensation, and they are giving all the time to their

fire companies that their busy lives permit. Many

fire departments, both paid and volunteer, are

performing as well as their resources allow. Yet

the Nation’s fire record gives them no ground for

complacency.

How can fire protection be improved? The easy

answer is to augment the budgets of fire departments by 20, 30, or 40 percent so that more equipment can be bought and more firefighters hired.

But it does not follow that increases of 20, 30, or

40 percent will be matched by like reductions in

losses of life and property. Nor is it realistic, at a

time when most local governments are financially

squeezed, to speak in such terms.

The more realistic solution, for most communities, lies in careful assessment of what future investments (whether in men, equipment, or new

programs) will maximize effectiveness, then a

gradual shift of priorities toward the most costeffective measures.

In such an assessment, basic questions need to

be 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 every

single-alarm fire? How many pieces of equipment?

(One study shows that less than 1 percent of all

calls for service require greater effort than can be

handled by two or three men and one fire engine.)

On the other hand, does sophisticated and expensive equipment make a critical difference in the

time it takes to suppress a fire? Does it save more

lives and reduce property losses?

Paid fire departments typically spend most of

their money and efforts on fire suppression;

usually less than 5 percent of the budget is devoted

to fire prevention. If part of the money spent on

responding to the tenement fire had been spent

instead on enforcing a tough fire prevention code,

would the fire have occurred at all?

Other questions for communities to ask: How

should firefighters be scheduled and deployed to

ensure effectiveness and efficiency in fire department operations? When a volunteer or paid department 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 department? Or should it consolidate fire services

with neighboring communities to avoid duplicating costs?

As communities undertake a basic reassessment

of their fire services, they will have to find solutions best suited to their conditions. Some communities are at an early stage of growth where

they can consider a number of alternatives to their

present system of fire protection. Others have a

heavy investment in their present system and can

consider only a gradual shift of priorities. Solutions appropriate to large cities are not likely to

work for small towns and bedroom communities.

For years fire chiefs and local governments have

been listening to one outside voice telling them

how to improve their fire services. That outside

voice has been the score their community receives on the Grading Schedule of the Insurance

Service Office (formerly of the American Insurance Association). The Grading Schedule was devised as a tool to assist in setting fire insurance

rates for each community. It was not intended as

a guide to fire department decisions, though circumstances have invited that kind of use. When a

community’s score has indicated that two or more

fire 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 recognize that their community’s interests and those

of the Grading Schedule do not necessarily coincide. The Grading Schedule, for example, is directed primarily toward preventing property

losses. Deaths and injuries are also prevented as

a result of this concern, but they are not the foremost consideration.

The Grading Schedule attaches only small importance to fire prevention. Ironically, few local

governments expend as much on fire prevention

as the Grading Schedule recommends. As we discuss in Chapters 11 and 16, more attention by fire

departments to fire prevention--through fire

safety education, building inspection, and approval of the fire protection features of building

plans-would significantly reduce life and property losses and injuries from fires.

Fire departments can’t be blamed for the ignorance and indifference that cause unsafe buildings

to be built, that account for shoddy wiring and

hazardous storage, that contribute to people’s

carelessness with matches and cigarettes, that explain the counterproductive behavior of people

when a fire breaks out. But if the tides of ignorance

and indifference are to be turned back, as surely

they must, then fire departments are the natural

place for the effort. As educators and enforcers,

fire departments can do much to lessen the incidence and destructiveness of fire. The importance

of the prevention role is underscored by the fact

that fire departments can do so little when fires

have gotten out of hand before they were notified.

The Commission recommends that local governments make fire prevention at least equal to

suppression in the planning of fire department

priorities.

The Present System

One reason large cities and smaller communities

are likely to arrive at very different solutions to

enhancing fire protection is that they tend to have

distinctly different fire departments. Most large

cities have paid fire departments; many smaller

communities are protected by volunteer departments.

About 1 million Americans serve as volunteer

firefighters-five times the number of paid firefighters 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 paid

firefighters, the Nation’s volunteers are rendering a public service worth at least $4.5 billion

annually.

The huge diversity among volunteer fire departments makes generalization about them difficult. While some are strapped for manpower,

others are endowed generously enough to send all

of their active members to State firefighter school

each year. Some serve isolated rural towns on

budgets as low as $3,500 a year. Others are called

upon to serve a densely populated area of 50

square miles with substantial budgets and manpower. The hazards they protect against range

from widely scattered houses and barns to heavily

populated urban areas.

The striking aspect of volunteer departments,

of course, is that they cost far less than paid departments. Then, too, volunteers are often people

of standing in the community, are dependent on

other citizens for contributions to the department,

so that a broad segment of the community is supportive of the department and conscious of the fire

problem. On the other hand, volunteer departments often can afford only a low level of training

and an inadequate dispatching and communications system. When a fire occurs, turnout can be

uncertain. Their part-time members usually lack

the experience of full-time firefighters. They also,

in many cases, lack the manpower to do building

inspection and other fire prevention work.

Since paid departments are generally larger,

and have more men on duty more of the time

than volunteer departments, they tend to be more

complex oragnizations. In addition to having specialized companies, e.g., engine, ladder, snorkel,

rescue-of from two to seven firemen, paid departments often have special staffs for training,

fire prevention, communications, purchasing,

community relations, and other purposes.

With such complexity, typical problems of bureaucracies emerge : lack of coordination among

separate units, the subordination of central purpose---public service-to petty rules and red tape,

AMERICA BURNING 19
the stifling of innovation. Presiding over this

tenuous alliance is the fire chief, who wears two

hats-one, the administrative hat required to run

the organization; the other, the helmet he dons

when the alarm is sounded to lead his firefighters

in the suppression of a fire. Since the fire chief

usually has come up through the ranks, the second

hat probably fits comfortably. It is the administrative duties of today’s complex municipal department for which the chief is less likely to be

adequately prepared.

Alternatives for the Future

Whether the fire department is volunteer or paid,

fire prevention and protection can be improved in

every community in the Nation. Few, if any,

communities can say they have reduced life and

property losses from fire to the extent humanly

possible.

For most communities, improving the effectiveness of the fire service calls for gradual changes

within the present structure: a shift of priorities

toward fire prevention, better deployment systems, improved management practices. Other

communities will want to consider a major shift

from their present system. In the next few pages

we explore some of the alternatives open to them.

Part volunteer, part paid. Communities that

have grown in size or complexity beyond the capabilities of their volunteer fire departments need to

consider a shift toward paid departments. Among

the advantages of a paid department is the fact

that, if it replaces several volunteer companies,

it can ensure that fire protection resources are

spread equitably in the community. One source of

criticism, of course, is the increased cost of paid

manpower. But the shift need only be partial. For

example, many volunteer departments can summon adequate manpower during evening and

nighttime hours but are hard pressed for manpower during daylight hours when volunteers are

at their jobs. In such instances, it would make

sense to have paid firefighters on duty during the

daytime.

Auxiliary firefighters. An alternative source of

supplemental manpower sometimes used is municipal employees who can be called away from

their main jobs without serious detriment to the

chief function they perform. Reliance on such personnel for first-alarm capability would certainly

20 ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

be ill-advised. However, if adequately trained as

firefighters, they can be a source of secondary

manpower.

Womanpower. When a small Florida community organized a volunteer fire department several years ago, it faced the classic problem: The

15 male members were not available during the

daytime. The solution : Nine wives took over the

daytime obligations. They have responded to as

many as six brush fires in a single day, and the fire

chief describes the system as working “beautifully.” In a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, wives are

similarly organized as a daytime rescue squad.

Fire departments that face physically strenuous

tasks day in and day out will understandably be

reluctant to hire women as firefighters. But reluctance to hire women for less taxing duties, such as

dispatching, ambulance-driving, and inspecting

buildings, is harder to defend and, indeed, is

likely to be challenged legally with increasing frequency in coming years. The Commission recommends that communities train and utilize women

for fire service duties.

Police-fire consolidation. A small number of

communities have consolidated, partially or fully,

their police and fire departments. One recent

source 

1

 lists 23 cities and towns with fully consolidated departments (usually called public

safety departments), 10 with partial consolidation, and two with “selected area” consolidationthat is, confined to certain neighborhoods.

Of the cities with fully consolidated departments, 17 of the 23 are in communities with fewer

than 10,000 residents. Generally they are affluent

residential communities, lacking the hazards associated with aging urban centers or large industrial

districts. They do not have the crime problems of

urban areas; hence, the absence of patrolmen during a fire is less risky than it would be in larger

cities.

The 23 communities all have some form of COoperative patrolmen or public safety officers--that

is, men with some firefighting training who are

primarily police officers, but who respond to fire

alarms and provide various forms of assistance.

In one city, for example, neighborhood patrols

carry resuscitators and large fire extinguishers in

their 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 be

equipment, 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 imeach 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 fighting

percent 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 and

patrolmen 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 century, fire was a dreaded threat to the advancing

American civilization. Fire wiped out farms;

time and again, conflagrations leveled whole

sections of towns and cities.

But citizens organized fire companies, and

they fought back. Proud of their roles and the

risks they took, volunteer companies became

true fraternities of men. Often a community

was served by several different companies, each

trying to be the best in town-the strongest,

fastest, shiniest. Rivalry sometimes led to brawls

and even sabotage.

The shift to paid departments in the larger

cities came only gradually. Boston established

the first, after a great conflagration in 1679, but

for the next 200 years separate volunteer companies survived in most cities.

With their strong fraternal traditions, the

volunteer companies resisted change, They

fought against relinquishing their place at the

tow line in front of the hand pumper to a horse;

they fought against efforts to reorganize the

companies into a municipal organization,

But inevitably, change came to the fire services. Hand-drawn pumpers gave way to horsedrawn steamers, which gave way to gasoline

engine pumpers. Coordinated municipal fire

services were established. Fire laws were enacted

to give some responsibility for fire control to the

citizenry. Technology reduced the risk of major

fires.

But the risks to firemen themselves have not

diminished. They still push themselves to the

outer edge of endurance-and sometimes

beyond. Even with advances in technology,

there still comes a moment when the fireman

must turn away from the lashing tongues of fire.

The struggle is still there, and it is still a heroic

struggle.

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 studies which find that firemen make much better

paramedics.

Several other cautions are in order. While consolidation plans make valuable use of firefighters’

non-emergency time, there are functions related to

fire protection that deserve higher priority: fire

prevention inspections, fire safety education, rescue and paramedic services among them. Moreover, no community can say with full assurance

that its fire problem is small.2

An additional consideration : If firefighters also

have law enforcement duties, they will be bad

choices for conducting residential fire safety inspections. Suspicions about their true intentions

will make them unwelcome in many homes.

Reduced services. An additional alternative

for communities is to freeze suppression services

of the fire department at the present level, while

at the same time placing more of the future burden for fire protection on the residents of the communities. This is not as novel as it may sound.

Many communities require buildings of a certain

size or type of occupancy to have sprinkler systems, in whole or in part, and many require that

major industrial plants have their own fire brigades. By spreading such requirements to other

classes of buildings, communities can reduce fire

losses without further taxing the capabilities of the

fire department. In many countries, we might add,

preventing destructive fire is regarded primarily

as the responsibility of the property owner, not the

fire department.

Private contracting. A further choice, laden

with controversy, is to contract for fire services

with a private firm. Many of the Nation’s early

fire companies were incorporated under State law

and provided their services on a contract basis.

Private contract companies exist in parts of Tennessee and Arizona.

Some city managers have been attracted to the

idea of private contracting on the grounds that a

private company is more likely to exhibit sound

management practices, efficiency, and innovation

2Crescent City, Ill., learned this painful lesson in the

summer of 1970. when a derailed tank car filled with proDane gas tore open and burned. and six other tank cars

exploded in a chain reaction, sometimes hurtling like rockets hundreds of feet. Despite the efforts of 250 firefighters

and 58 pieces of apparatus, 64 people were injured, 24

living quarters were destroyed, and 90 percent of the business district was wiped out.

than an arm of the government. On the other

hand, the pressures to make a profit run counter

to the fundamental aims of the fire services---to

save as many lives, and to reduce as many injuries and property losses, as possible. A community considering contract service must define its

requirements and standards of performance very

carefully. It must have continuing proof, through

the company’s records of performance, that community expectations are being met. (Once it has

drawn a contract with adequate provisions, a

community must face the possibility that no entrepreneur will come forward to assume the risks.)

Governmental contracting. Many communities have mutual-aid agreements with neighboring

communities so that they work together to cope

with major fires. A more formal banding together occurs when a community pays a neighboring or encompassing political jurisdiction to

provide it fire protection. The Los Angeles County

Fire Department serves 35 communities on this

basis. Services provided range from paramedic

teams to forest fire suppression. Communities

benefit from the availability of equipment and

specialized services that they could hardly afford

on their own.

Regionalization. Contracts between governments are but one route to a very successful

method of improving the fire services. Another

route is through regionalization.

The experience of Great Britain with regionalization is instructive. During World War II, that

country’s fire services were nationalized for the

sake of defense. After the war, the fire services

were denationalized but, rather than being divided into the 1,500 jurisdictions that had existed

before the war, they were consolidated into about

150 fire jurisdictions. Resources were pooled, and

economic efficiency was gained through the elimination of duplicated services. In particular, the

advantages cited of the British experience were:

l More efficient manning through the combining

of small companies;

l Greater operational effectiveness through better manned companies, uniform fire suppression methods, direct control of response of all

companies (rather than depending on mutual

aid arrangements like those in many American

communities), and the ability to concentrate

manpower 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 purchases and standardization of parts;

l Better recordkeeping with less total effort.

While regionalization has succeeded in some

areas of the United States, it has been stoutly

resisted in other areas. Fire departments, especially

volunteer departments, have developed an esprit

de corps and a pride in their achievements, and

they are understandably reluctant to sacrifice

the measure of autonomy that regionalization

would require. Having raised, through donations,

$50,000 to buy a fire truck, they are reluctant to

relinquish any control of it. Companies that have

developed personnel and operational policies

which they feel are superior to those of other companies in the region fear they might have to give

them up for the sake of regional uniformity.

Others argue that enlarged jurisdictions put control in the hands of people not familiar with local

conditions, lessen civic interest in the fire services,

and introduce morale problems as a result of less

personal relationships in the larger organization.

And some fear that regionalization would phase

out some companies in the name of efficiency,

thereby increasing response distances to fires in

some areas.

With careful planning, however, fears can be

abated and the real problems overcome. Furthermore, if the protection of the public is not firstrate, then the effort needs to be made. It behooves

county governments, and municipal governments

in which several independent fire companies still

exist, to explore means of effecting regionalization of their fire services, At a minimum, such explorations should cover formal arrangements for

mutual aid, especially during large fires; the sharing of management and of specialized functions,

such as arson investigation and fire safety education; centralization of purchasing and training;

uniformity in all important practices; standardization of reporting procedures; and the institution

of an area-wide communications and dispatching

system.

State governments have an obligation to promote regional approaches to fire protection. As

it is now, many States have laws that hamper co24 ARE THERE OTHER WAYS?

operative arrangements among local jurisdictions. The Commission recommends that laws

which hamper cooperative arrangements among

local fire jurisdictions be changed to remove the

restrictions.

Fire Protection Planning

Which, if any, of the foregoing alternatives is

appropriate for a community will depend on its

careful analysis of present conditions and directions of future growth.

Fire protection is only one of many community

services. Not only must it compete for dollars with

other municipal needs, such as the education system and the police department, but, in planning

for future growth, the fire protection system must

take into account the changes going on elsewhere

in the community. For example, if a slum area is

to be torn down and replaced with high-rise

apartment buildings, that will change the fire

protection needs of the area. Changes in zoning

maps will also change the fire protection needs in

different parts of the community.

To cope with future growth, local administrators are turning increasingly to the concept of

muster planning of municipal functions. Such

plans include an examination of existing programs, projections of future needs of the community, and a determination of methods to fill those

needs. They seek the most cost-effective allocations of resources to help assure that the needs

will be met.

A major section of a community general plan

of land use should be a Master Plan for Fire

Protection., written chiefly by fire department

managers. This plan should, first of all, be consistent with and reinforce the goals of the city’s overall general plan. For example, it should plan its

deployment of manpower and equipment according to the kind of growth, and the specific areas

of growth, that the community foresees. It should

set goals and priorities for the fire department. Not

only is it important to set objectives in terms of

lives and property to be saved, but also to decide

allocations among fire prevention inspection, fire

safety education, and fire suppression as the best

way to accomplish the objectives.

Having established goals, the plan should seek

to establish “management by objectives” within

the fire department. This operates on the principle
that management is most effective when each person is aware of how his tasks fit into the overall

goals and has committed himself to getting specific jobs done in a specified time.

Because fire departments exist in a real world

where a variety of purposes must be served with

a limited amount of money, it is important that

every dollar be invested for maximum payoff, The

fire protection master plan should not only seek to

provide the maximum cost-benefit ratio for fire

protection expenditures, but should also establish a framework for measuring the effectiveness

of these expenditures.

Lastly, the plan should clarify the fire protection

responsibility for other groups in the community,

both governmental and private.

The Commission recommends that every local

fire jurisdiction prepare a master plan designed

to meet the community’s present and future

needs in fire protection, to serve as a basis for

program budgeting, and to identify and implement the optimum cost-benefit solutions in fire

protection. Wherever possible, this should be a

regional jurisdiction embracing several political

jurisdictions-for example, county-wide or larger

in rural areas and metropolis-wide in urban areas.

(In Chapter 4 we discuss the tools to carry out this

program.) In other chapters we recommend Federal assistance, in the form of grants for equipment

and training, to local fire departments to improve

their reduction of fire losses.

Such assistance should be in response only to

well-substantiated needs. Hence, the Commission

recommends that Federal grants for equipment

and training be available only to those fire jurisdictions that operate from a federally approved

master plan for fire protection.

The Commission recognizes that the planner

who sets out in search of the most cost-effective

solutions to his local fire problems is faced with

scanty data on which to make such decisions.

What is the difference in performance, if any, between a fire station that serves a 12-block radius

and one that serves a six-block radius? How is

performance affected by the addition or subtraction of one man on a pumper? What are the hazards most important to eliminate through building

and fire prevention codes and enforcement?

There is a ‘dearth of systematic studies of methods of fire protection. We have advocated that

master plans include provisions for evaluating

various approaches to fire protection, but until

such time as evaluation can be made, master planning will be a very inexact approach to rationalizing fire protection. The need is not only for more

systematic studies of methods of fire protection,

but for a centralized office to collect and disseminate evaluation data, so that communities

can learn from each other. The Commission recommends that the proposed United States Fire

Administration act as a coordinator of studies

of fire protection methods and assist local jurisdictions in adapting findings to their fire protection planning. In this endeavor the U.S. Fire

Administration should work closely with other

Federal agencies, such as the National Bureau of

Standards, the Department of Agriculture, and

with private fire protection groups such as the

Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations and the National Fire Protection Association.

AMERICA BURNING 25

THE FIRE SERVICES

4

PLANNING FOR FIRE PROTECTION

Setting sights upon the future of fire protection in

this Nation, as this Commission is charged to do,

brings into focus a major need underlying many

others: Planning.

Fire protection has been largely a local responsibility, and for good reasons it is destined to remain so. Each community has a set of conditions

unique to itself, and a system of fire protection

that works well for one community cannot be assumed to work equally well for other communities.

To be adequate, the fire protection system must

respond to local conditions, especially to changing

conditions. Planning is the key: Without locallevel planning, the system of fire protection is apt

to be ill-suited to local needs and lag behind the

changing needs of the community.

Excellent fire protection-for example, in the

form of automatic extinguishing systems-lies

within technical grasp, and certainly lies within

the resources of most communities to provide.

Even with considerable public support, this protection would require many years to accomplish.

In the meantime, in every fire jurisdictionwhether a municipality, county, or regionstandards aiming at a significant increase in fire

protection must be set. Among the concepts to

be defined:

l Adequate level of fire protection.. The question of “adequacy” addresses itself not only to

day-to-day normal needs, but to major contingencies that can he anticipated and to future

needs as well. What is needed is a definition of

“optimal” protection-in contrast to “minimal” protection, which fails to meet contingencies and future needs, and “maximal” protection, which is more than the community can

afford.

l Reasonable community costs. Fire, both as

threat 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 providing built-in fire protection. Each community

must decide on an appropriate level of investment in fire protection. Some costs beyond the

public’s willingness to bear should be transferred to the private sector-as when buildings

over a certain size or height or with a certain

occupancy are required to have automatic extinguishing systems.

l Acceptable risk. A certain level of losses from

fire must be accepted as tolerable simply because of the limited resources of the community.

Conditions that endanger the safety of citizens

AMERICA BURNING 27
and firefighters beyond the acceptable risk must

he identified as targets for reduction.

Consideration of these matters helps to determine what functions and emphasis should be assigned to the fire department, other municipal

departments, and the private sector, both now and

in the future, It helps to define new policies, laws,

or regulations that may be needed. Most important, consideration of these matters makes clear

that fire safety is a responsibility shared by the

public and private sectors. Because the fire department cannot prevent all fire losses, formal obligations fall on owners of certain kinds of buildings

to have built-in fire protection. For the same reason, private citizens have an obligation to exercise

prudence with regard to fire in their daily lives.

But prudence also requires education in fire safety,

and the obligation to provide that education appropriately falls in the public sector, chiefly the

fire department. The public sector-again, chiefly

the fire department-also has an obligation to see

that requirements for built-in protection in the

private sector are being met.

A fire department, then, has more than one responsibility. Nor are the responsibilities just mentioned exhaustive. At least eight important functions for fire departments can be identified:

l Fire suppression. Firefighters need proper

training and adequate equipment for saving

lives and putting out fires quickly, and also for

their own safety.

l Life safety-paramedical services. Capabilities needed during fires and other emergencies

include first aid, resuscitation, and possibly paramedical services. (By “paramedical services”

we mean emergency treatment beyond ordinary

first aid, performed by fire service personnel

under supervision-through radio communication, for example--of a physician.)

l Fire prevention. This includes approving

building plans and actual construction, inspecting buildings, their contents, and their fire

protection equipment, public education, and

investigating the causes of fires to serve as a

guide to future priorities in fire prevention.

l Fire safety education. Fire departments have

an obligation to bring fire safety education, not

only into schools and private homes, but also

into occupancies with greater than average fire

potential or hazard to people, such as restaurants, hotels, hospitals, and nursing homes.

l Deteriorated building hazards. In coordination with other municipal departments, fire departments can work to abate serious hazards to

health and safety caused by deteriorated structures or abandoned buildings.

l Regional coordination. Major emergencies

can exceed the capabilities of a single fire department, and neighboring fire jurisdictions

should have detailed plans for coping with such

emergencies. But effectiveness can also be

improved through sharing of day-to-day operaMaster 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 communication and dispatching network.

l Data development. Knowledge of how well a

fire department is doing, and of how practices

should change to improve performance, depends on adequate record-keeping.

l Community relations. Fire departments are

representative of the local community that supports them. The impression they make on citizens affects how citizens view their government.

Volunteer departments dependent on private

donations must, of course, also be concerned

with their community relations. Moreover, since

fire stations are strategically located throughout the community, they can serve as referral

or dispensing agencies for a wide range of municipal services.

As communities set out to improve their fire

protection, it is not the fire department alone they

must consider. The police have a role in reporting

fires and in handling traffic and crowds during

fires. The cooperation of the building department

is needed to enforce the fire safety provisions of

building codes. The work of the water department

in maintaining the water system is vital to fire suppression. In the realm of fire safety education, the

public schools, the department of recreation, and

the public library can augment the work of the fire

department. Future development and planning

will influence the location of new fire stations and

how they will be equipped.

These are just the obvious examples of interdependence. So seemingly trivial a matter as the

manner in which house numbers are assigned and

posted can affect the ability of fire departments to

respond quickly and effectively to emergencies.

The Master Plan for Fire Protection

In Chapter 3 we proposed that each local fire

jurisdiction in the Nation develop a master plan

for fire protection. The master plan, we pointed

out, should set goals and priorities for the fire services, designed to meet the changing needs of the

community. It should seek to allocate resources

for the maximum payoff in fire protection, and it

should provide for a data system for continual

monitoring of cost-effectiveness.

1

 As we recommended there, wherever possible this

should be a regional jurisdiction embracing several political jurisdictions-for example, county-wide or larger in

rural areas, and metropolis-wide in urban areas.

A look at how one city has developed a master

plan is instructive. Several years ago, the city of

Mountain View, Calif.,2 began to prepare its

General Plan of Land Use. As a statement of fire

department needs, the city manager’s office was

prepared to accept the recommendations of the

American Insurance Association (which at that

time had responsibility for the Grading Schedule).

These recommendations called for eight fire stations in Mountain View, with five men per engine

company and six to seven men per truck company

if the city wanted to improve the insurance

grading.

The fire chief interceded to suggest that deeper

study would lead to a different set of goals for the

fire department. He proposed a “philosophy of fire

protection” for Mountain View with two aspects.

First, emphasis should be on preventing fire losses,

chiefly through code enforcement and control of

contents and activities within structures. Second,

the fire department can cope with emergencies

only to a certain level. “Where the normal anticipated potential for emergencies exceeds the

planned capability of the on-duty fire force, developers and operators of buildings and businesses

will be responsible for providing the balance of

fire protection.” Usually this would mean some

form of built-in fire protection.

In developing a master plan for fire protection,

the Mountain View fire chief and his staff took a

careful look at recent fire experience. From that

study, they were able to project that apartment

house and industrial fires would be an increasing

burden on the department. By examining the

causes of recent fires, they were able to set priorities for fire safety education and code enforcement.

They were also able to arrive at a definition of

“adequate” fire protection service, which included

the provision that firefighting forces arrive within

4 minutes after the emergency has been reported.

The chief and his staff also examined the capabilities of the fire department’s equipment to suppress large fires. This led to recommendations that

the building code be amended to require all nonresidential occupancies over 5,000 square feet to

have approved fire detectors, and all over 10,000

square feet to have automatic sprinkler systems

3

 Appendix VI contains the Mountain View Master

Plan for Fire Protection. This is part of the overall General

Plan of Land Use.

AMERICA BURNING 29
DEVISING A FIRE PROTECTION PLAN

The following can serve as guidelines to fire department administrators for developing and

presenting a master plan for fire protection:

Phase I

1. Identify the fire protection problems of

the jurisdiction.

2. Identify the best combination of public

resources and built-in protection required to

manage the fire problem, within acceptable

limits :

(a) Specify current capabilities and future

needs of public resources ;

(b) Specify current capabilities and future

requirements for built-in protection.

3. Develop alternative methods that will

result in trade-offs between benefits and risks.

4. Establish a system of goals, programs, and

cost estimates to implement the plan:

(a) The process of developing department

goals and programs should include maximum possible participation of fire department personnel, of all ranks;

(b) The system should provide goals and

objectives for all divisions, supportive of

the overall goals of the department;

(c) Management development programs

should strive to develop increased acceptance of authority and responsibility

by all fire officers, as they strive to accomplish established objectives and

programs.

Phase II

1. Develop, with the other government agencies, a definition of their roles in the fire protection process.

2. Present the proposed municipal fire protection system to the city administration for

review.

3. Present the proposed system for adoption

as the fire protection element of the jurisdiction’s general plan. The standard process for development of a general plan provides the fire

department administrator an opportunity to inform the community leaders of the fire protection goals and system and to obtain their

support.

Phase III

In considering the fire protection element the

governing body of the jurisdiction will have to

pay special attention to:

1. Short- and long-range goals,

2. Long-range staffing and capital improvement plans,

3. The code revisions required to provide fire

loss management.

Phase IV

The fire loss management system must be

reviewed and updated as budget allocations,

capital improvement plans, and code revisions

occur. Continuing review of results should concentrate 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 in

residential fires are from smoke inhalation, they

recommended that smoke detectors and sprinkler

heads be required at the top of the stairwell in all

two-story residences.

The Mountain View chief and his staff inventoried the fire department, in terms of both personnel and equipment, and then projected additional needs of manpower and capital investments

over a lo-year period. In developing the master

plan, the chief and his assistants made a detailed

list of objectives, in order of priority, not only for

the department as a whole, but for the chief, assistant chiefs, battalion chiefs, and captains. They

established a timetable for implementing special

events, such as company inspections and arson

30 PLANNING FOR FIRE PROTECTION

seminars. To make sure the fire prevention bureau

and firefighters understood their responsibilities

in fire inspection, they listed every kind of occupancy in the city and assigned each category to

one or the other. Another detailed listing set forth

clearly the fire protection responsibilities of other

city departments, such as the police, water, engineering, and planning departments.

The kind of study Mountain View has been

conducting is not costly. Certainly it is not expensive in light of the cost-effectiveness it promises

taxpayers of that city. The data from which its

projections are derived are mostly data fire departments ought to be collecting every day as a means

of continually monitoring their effectiveness. Yet

we recognize that many local and county govern-
ments are financially strapped ; they are hard

put to provide adequate services for today, much

less to plan for better services tomorrow. They will

need help tomorrow to improve fire protection,

but they need help today to determine what those

improvements should be.

The planning we have called for does more

than place fire department activities on a rational

footing; it requires fire departments to consider

means of reducing fire losses beyond mere fire

suppression. It calls for a broader approach,

which may require changes in laws and codes

as well as increased emphasis on fire prevention

and fire safety education by fire departments.

This broader approach, which might be termed

“fire loss management,” is a radical departure for

many communities.

Some fire departments will lack the expertise

and management ability to devise master plans

on their own. If they have been relying solely on

the Grading Schedule, they will find that the master plan involves attention to many more factors

and calls for custom-tailoring future priorities to

meet local conditions. For the first time, they may

find it necessary to call in fire protection engineers

and management consultants to aid in establishing levels of fire protection and methods to obtain

those levels. The Commission recommends that

the proposed United States Fire Administration

provide grants to local fire jurisdictions for developing master plans for fire protection. Further, the proposed U.S. Fire Administration

should provide technical advice and qualified

personnel to local fire jurisdictions to help them

develop master plans.

The Impetus for Change

Every system has advantages and disadvantages.

No one is motivated to change a system or pattern

of behavior when the advantages seem to lie with

the status quo and the disadvantages with the

contemplated change. Change toward fire loss

management will be attractive only if the rewards

of the proposed practices and the penalties of

existing practices are seen to outweigh the rewards for existing practices and the penalties associated with change. If the opposite holds true,

then there will be little impetus to move in the

direction of fire loss management.

One of the jobs of the US. Fire Administration will be to persuade local governments that

the rewards lie in a change toward fire loss

management, penalties in the status quo. A few

of the advantages of the fire loss management

approach deserve mention here. It puts planning

for the future on a sound basis and makes it easier

to defend budget requests each year. It brings the

top levels of local government, who don’t understand fire department program needs, into active

participation in planning the community’s total

fire protection. It brings from “under the carpet”

emergency situations beyond the capabilities of

the fire department and makes clear what will be

done in such cases. The approach provides fire

departments with a management system that can

weed out outmoded practices and justify the practices they retain. Lastly, it can restructure firefighters’ jobs to make them more productive to

the citizenry-and more rewarding to the firefighter.

AMERICA BURNING 31

THE FIRE SERVICES

5

FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL

Common sense tells us that, once a destructive fire

has begun, the effectiveness of the fire department

in reducing life and property losses depends, to a

large extent, on ( 1) how soon firefighters arrive

at the scene and (2) what they and their equipment do after they have arrived.

Thus, manpower is a key factor in fire suppression. Quick response requires not only that fire

stations and fire trucks be placed in enough locations, but that the fire houses be adequately

manned. And while it is important that equipment at the fire scene be adequate to the task (a

concern we discuss in Chapter 7), it is equally

important that there be enough firefighters, adequately trained, to use the equipment effectively.

Manpower is also a key factor in fire prevention. Efforts to inspect buildings for fire safety

and to educate the public about fire hazards require the actions of specially trained people,

Common sense tells us, therefore, that changes

in manning of fire departments (especially if

they have responsibilities for fire prevention as

well as suppression ) affect the ability of those

departments to control life and property losses

from fire. Changes in manning, one would expect, also affect the rate at which firefighters sustain injuries. By changes in manning we mean

not only the addition or subtraction of firemen,

but changes in departmental entrance requirements, changes in training, changes in physical

conditioning, and changes in the way manpower

is deployed.

But precisely how do such changes affect fire

losses or firefighter injuries? As was true of some

of the questions in Chapter 3, good answers do

not exist. Almost no data-gathering and almost

no systematic studies have been performed to

correlate various manpower strategies with

effectiveness.

Such questions are not idle ones. In a poll conducted for Nation’s Cities in February 1972,

33 percent of the responding cities reported that

their fire departments were manned at under authorized levels. The International Association of

Fire Fighters, among others, is concerned that

cuts in manpower, made in the name of economy,

may be exposing firefighters to greater risks of

injuries. Fire chiefs worry because layoffs of

younger men are robbing their departments of

future leaders. The fire insurance industry is concerned that manpower cuts may lead to an increase of large-loss fires. Citizens, too, worry about

reduced fire protection and the effect of undermanning on their insurance rates.

AMERICA BURNING 33
In the absence of cost-effectiveness studies of

various manpower strategies, who can say what

the effects of manpower cuts are likely to be?

But this is not solely a scientific question; it has

a moral dimension as well. Saving lives, reducing

property losses, and preventing firefighter injuries

are far more important considerations than efficiency in government. It is far better to err on the

side of overmanning than to risk the public’s safety

through manpower cuts. Economy-minded governtments should be concerned with getting greater

productivity from their fire departments, not with

saving dollars to the possible detriment of their

citizens’ safety.

Pressure Toward Better Utilization

Fire departments cannot continue to base their

manpower practices on past experience and

hunches. The economic pressures on local governments translate into a need to base manpower

policies on a firm foundation of proven cost-effectiveness, There are other pressures in this direction as well :

Public expectations. Fire departments are not

the only municipal service under pressure to justify their policies. The fact that other departments

of local government are under similar pressure

suggests that the departments that come forward

with the best analyses are likely to convince local

officials and the public that their needs are valid.

If fire departments lag behind, they are likely to

be treated with indifference. If fire departments

come forward with bond issues for new equipment and facilities based on inadequate studies,

they are apt to encounter stiff resistance from

those public officials and influential citizens who

live in a world of cost-benefit analyses and tradeoff studies.

Other pressures arise when public expectations

exceed what the fire department is delivering.

Many citizens arc bothered by their perception

of the paid firefighter as one who spends most of

his duty time in idleness. While in many communities this impression is out of date, the fact that

the impression lingers should concern fire department administrators. In some communities, on

the other hand, the public has come to expect the

fire service to handle any life safety emergency. If

the fire department does not live up to this

expectation, the public may conclude that fire

department manpower is not worth its costs to

taxpayers.

The changing environment. Another pressure toward placing manpower practices on a

more rational basis stems from changes that have

occurred in our urban society and in fire problems. Take, for example, the high-rise building,

a special problem to which more and more fire

departments are being introduced. Heights exceed ladder reach. Air and heating ducts, in

many cases, rapidly spread fire and smoke, sometimes faster than a heavily populated building

ran be evacuated. Windows may be sealed, caus34 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 departproblems require not only an adequate number ments increases.

of firefighters at the scene, but firefighters who are Equal opportunity considerations. Moral contrained 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 departout the fire.

Fire departments have been growing larger as

the Nation becomes more urbanized. Shopping

centers and other commercial complexes are

sprouting up in rural areas, putting increased demands on their fire departments, With the growing size of fire departments and the growing

complexity of the hazards in the environment, the

1

 The equal employment opportunity provisions of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended) apply to all fire

departments except those that are purely volunteer and

without any quasi-governmental attributes, and those departments with fewer than 15 employees. In court decisions, purely volunteer departments have been found

exempt from the provisions only if they function without

any significant governmental sponsorship or aid and without any privilege to claim government benefits.

AMERICA BURNING 35
ments be related only to the performance requirements of the job. This is to prevent discrimination

against minorities in hiring. It is our observation

that many fire departments have quite some distance to go to fulfill this need. Too many entrance

tests expect skills unrelated to firefighting; some

put so much emphasis on administrative skills that

they appear to be saying, “In every firefighter

there must be a fire chief waiting to be discovered.” Too few tests, on the other hand, relate

to the skills a firefighter needs. Only recently, in

fact, have any attempts been made to correlate

entrance examination scores, fire school scores,

and on-the-job performance.

What Can Be Done?

What we have said thus far about manpower considerations in the fire services suggests several

areas of research that need to be pursued.

Specifically, the Commission recommends that

the proposed United States Fire Administration

sponsor research in the following areas:

productivity measure of fire departments.

How do various manning strategies affect the

ability of a fire department to put out fires and

rescue fire’s victims? How can firefighters’ responsibilities be extended into new areas, especially into fire prevention efforts or non-fire

emergency rescue, without jeopardizing fire

suppression and rescue?

job analyses. Different fire departments render different kinds of services, depending on

their assigned responsibilities and the kinds of

hazards that exist in the environment they serve.

What skills are required of firefighters and

officers under these varying conditions? How

should candidates be screened for these

positions?

firefighter injuries. How can injuries be reduced? For example, are firefighters taking unnecessary risks to save abandoned buildings?

(In this area there is a need for studies of firemen’s protective equipment, which we discuss

in Chapter 7.)

fire prevention efforts. What kinds of educational programs effectively reduce burn injuries? What kinds of hazards are most

important to eliminate? How can fire department inspections and educational programs be

made most effective?

In all these areas of research, a very useful

method is to compare the performance of fire departments using different strategies in attacking

the problem under study, and then to isolate the

factor that makes the difference in perfomance.

This means that fire departments under study

must keep adequate records of their performance.

Impact must be considered. In evaluating the relative importance of a particular fire hazard, for

example, it is not enough to record the number of

inspections made (input) and then the frequency

with which the unsafe practice occurs (output).

It is necessary that the number of fires attributable

to-or aggravated by-the unsafe practice be

evaluated (impact), (Note that input over impact in dollars is the cost-benefit ratio.)

Since the research needs are urgent and should

not await pursuit until a U.S. Fire Administration

is established, the Commission urges the Federal

research agencies, such as the National Science

Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards, to sponsor research appropriate to their

respective missions within the areas of productivity of fire departments, causes of firefighter injuries, effectiveness of fire prevention efforts, and

the skills required to perform various fire department functions,

The emergence of guidelines for fire services development through federally sponsored research

will be a long step forward. But to implement the

findings to meet local conditions, expert leadership in fire departments is needed.

The linking of “expert” with “leadership” is

vital. Most American fire departments are strong

in leadership and weak in management expertise.

The typical hiring and promotion system-in

which everyone from the chief on down started

as a rookie fireman-has guaranteed good leaders who understand the needs of the men under

them and are respected by their subordinates. But

fire departments could profit from competition for

certain leadership positions from outside fire departments. They need qualified planners whose

expertise lies in fire protection engineering, operations research, and systems studies rather than

firefighting. This is especially true in larger departments where, further, specialists in budgeting,

personnel, and community relations need not be

firefighters. The experience of other kinds of organizations, moreover, shows that thinking can be36 FIRE SERVICE PERSONNEL
come stale and practices inbred when no outside

entry is permitted. The Commission recommends

that the Nation’s fire departments recognize advanced and specialized education and hire or

promote persons with experience at levels commensurate with their skills.

Presently, the retirement systems of most fire

departments discourage hiring from outside at

any level above that of basic firefighters. For example, in many departments, only those who join

between the ages of 21 and 30 arc eligible for retirement benefits. Seldom are retirement system

credits portable; a fireman who transfers to another department must begin building credits

anew, as though he were a rookie firefighter. TO

encourage greater opportunity for. choice for firefighters and officers, the vesting of retirement

rights and transfer of retirement credits to other

jurisdictions needs to be made possible. The subject of lateral transfer should be studied in detail

through a project sponsored by the proposed U.S.

Fire Administration. A major objective should be

to determine ways in which personnel can transfer

between fire departments and retain all retirement

rights.

As important as we consider flexible hiring

practices, we do not mean to depreciate the value

of training within fire departments. At the outset

of this chapter we said that one of the important

ways to change fire department manning is to

change training programs. Improvements in

training can favorably influence a department’s

effectiveness-in saving lives, reducing property

losses, and preventing injuries to firefighters.

The quality of training given America’s firefighters and officers varies widely. It is not difficult to see why. There are no national training

requirements for firemen, and only 15 States have

training standards which all firemen must meet.

For volunteer firefighters there are no financial incentives and sometimes little opportunity to

further their training. For paid departments as

well as volunteer ones, training is an expensive

undertaking that removes the trainees from useful

service for a period of time. Many communities, if

called upon to augment their fire department

training, simply could not afford to. The Commission recommends a program of Federal financial assistance to local fire services to upgrade

their training.’ To qualify for this assistance, a

fire jurisdiction should be required to present a

master plan for fire protection substantiating the

need for further training.

As we indicated earlier, entrance requirements

for the Nation’s fire departments also vary widely,

and too few tests meet the Federal requirements

that they be related only to the performance requirements of the job applied for. Because of the

conservative hiring and promotion practices of

fire departments, too many tests emphasize the

applicant’s potentiality for moving far up in rank.

Better training programs, together with greater

willingness of departments to hire at all ranks

from outside, would diminish the need for this

emphasis. A fair and job-related test, which the

Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations is now working on, will, in turn, create pressures for better training and more liberal hiring

and promotion practices,

It is our concern for the rights of America’s

racial minorities which prompts our urging that

entrance tests be fair and job-related. But we believe even further steps are necessary to overcome

the effects of years of discrimination in many departments. It is not enough for fire departments

to establish fair standards in hiring; they must

reach out to minority communities and actively

seek recruits. In the administering of Federal

funds for training or other assistance to local

fire departments, the Commission recommends

that eligibility be limited. to those departments

that have adopted an effective, affirmative

action program related to the employment and

promotion of members of minority groups.

Increasing Productivity: Two Possibilities

The nature of the job of most firefighters requires

much standby time which is not devoted to reducing fire losses. Most leaders in the fire services

agree that the productive time of firefighters

ought to be increascd. And most agree that whatever additional services firefighters are called

a

 In the next chapter, we recommend the establishment

of a National Fire Academy. primarily to provide special

training for fire department management. It would be

appropriate for the U.S. Fire Administration, through

the National Fire Academy, not only to channel funds to

local and regional training programs, but to develop curricula for local use. train local instructors. and provide

special instructors ‘to local and regional’ fire training

centers.

AMERICA BURNING 37
upon to render, the services ought to utilize firefighters’ special capabilities. Painting street signs

and registering bicycles are useful activities, but

they don’t meet this criterion.

Activities which meet this criterion, and which

ought to receive topmost priority in extending

firefighters’ productivity, lie in the area of fire prevention. A recurring theme of this report is that

a much heavier investment of time and resources

in fire prevention is the most expeditious route to

reduce life and property losses from fire. While

many departments recognize responsibilities in

fire prevention, too few are doing all they should

or could.

There are many fire prevention activities that

fire departments can undertake. They can conduct inspections to enforce local codes, ordinances, and common-sense fire prevention practices. They can supplement the efforts of other

code inspectors-for example, by reviewing building plans in cooperation with the building department. They can inspect special items of

importance, such as hydrants, sprinkler systems,

and standpipes. They can check high-risk areas,

such as wooden-structured slums and areas where

buildings are under construction. For the sake

of pre-fire planning, they can conduct familiarization inspections of structures and areas where

their services may be needed someday.

Last but not least, fire departments can conduct educational programs-not only to teach

school children and heads of households, but also

to teach employees of hospitals, hotels, and other

public buildings of their special responsibilities.

These programs should be continuing, year-round

efforts, not simply projects for fire prevention

week.

The payoffs of such efforts lie in reduced demands for fire suppression, and reduced deaths,

injuries, and property losses. Which of these efforts have the greatest payoff is, as we have indicated, a question on which appallingly little

research has been done. But greater efforts in fire

prevention cannot await the arrival of better data.

Not for the sake of productivity alone, but for the

sake of the public’s safety, the time to get on with

it is now.

Another kind of activity that meets the criterion

of utilizing firefighter’s special capabilities is

emergency ambulance and paramedical service.

From time to time, nearly every fire department is

called upon to respond to emergencies having

nothing to do with fire. Indeed, in some departments, responding to non-fire emergencies is an

official responsibility and a major part of the department’s workload. But many departments

have moved gradually toward heavier assumption of this responsibility without adequate planning and preparation. As a result, they are still

responding to non-fire emergencies with fire trucks

-an expensive and inappropriate use of equipment. Or they are requiring firefighters to handle

some patients they are not trained to handle. Or

they are compiling a poor record of response to

non-fire emergencies because they have an inadequate communications and deployment system.

There are sound reasons for fire departments

assuming emergency ambulance and paramedical

functions. If fire stations are logically located to

guarantee quick response to fires, then ambulances

placed in fire stations will be logically deployed

as well. Secondly, firefighters are, by temperament

and training, people-rescuers, and handling all

emergency patients is not a major shift of responsibility. Thirdly, a communications system designed to get emergency vehicles to the fire scene is

well along the way to sufficiency for handling all

emergencies. Lastly, a consideration not to be discounted : The provision of ambulance services will

enhance the value of the fire department in the

eyes of the community that supports it.

The Commission recommends that fire departments lacking emergency ambulance, paramedical, and rescue services consider providing

them, especially if they are located in communities where these services are not adequately provided by other agencies, We recognize that

assumption of these responsibilities requires investment in new equipment, in additional training

programs, and-most likely-in additional manpower. Also, careful planning is required to ensure that the general rescue responsibility does not

compromise the fire department’s responsibilities

in 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

6

A NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY

Fire department managers have difficult tasks

thrust upon them. Every second counts in the

battle against a fire, and they must make quick

but well-informed decisions affecting, at the same

time, the outcome of a fire and the safety of the

firefighters under their command. They must see

to it that their firefighters arc adequately

trained---not only to fight fires, but to handle

frightened fire victims and administer first aid.

Since firefighters have other duties, especially in

fire prevention education and inspections, their

officers must ensure that the duties are carried out

effectively. Fire department managers must also

deal with the public—making sure that the department meets public expectations, and seeking,

in turn, public support of the department. What

makes these responsibilities particularly difficult

is that, in thousands of smaller departments, they

are bound up in a single individual, the fire chief,

often a man elected from among the volunteer

membership.

Those who bear these responsibilities know that

the key to their performance, and the performance of those under them, lies in training. At both

State and local levels in this Nation, the quality of

training ranges from excellence to total absence.

Usually the quality of training is tied to economic

circumstances. But poor training programs could

be improved, at little cost, if they followed the

example of outstanding programs. At present,

however, there is no systematic, interchange of information among educators in the fire services.

One possible remedy has almost ananimous

support within the fire suppression and protection

fields—namely, a National Fire Academy. What

most experts envision is an institution that not

only has advanced education programs of its own,

but also lends help to State and local training and

educational programs. In addition to conducting

classes and seminars at its own facility, the Academy would serve as the hub of an educational

network. The Academy system would use existing

fire training school programs, fire science education programs in community colleges, and fire

management and fire protection engineering programs at the college or university level in each

State. The Academy would function as the core

of the Nation’s efforts in fire service education--

feeding out model programs, curricula, and information, and at the same time receiving helpful

advice from those schools and the fire services.

The list of advocates of a National Fire

Academy includes the International Association

of Fire Chiefs and the International Association

of Fire Fighters. It includes, as well, the National

Fire Protection Association, the Committee on

AMERICA BURNING 41
Fire Research of the National Research Council,

the Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and many more. As

other organizations have done, the Commission

recommends the establishment of a National

Fire Academy to provide specialized training in

areas important to the fire services and to assist

State and local jurisdictions in their training

programs.

A National Fire Academy could have a number

of salutary effects upon the fire services. For

example:

l The Academy would help fire departments to

reduce injuries, deaths, and property losses. Individual fire departments have discovered

superior techniques for coping with fires, but

their successes have not been shared with other

departments except through informal channels.

Academy courses in command strategy and tactics could be attuned to specific categories of

risk, such as congested cities, industrial complexes, and wildlands. Courses in such fields

as arson investigation, code enforcement, and

fire safety education would address themselves

to major ways of reducing fire losses.

l The Academy would increase the attractiveness of fire service careers. The training opportunities offered by the Academy would make

positions in the fire services intellectually more

stimulating.

l Academy training would equip fire service officers with the technical expertise they need in

today’s competitive environments. Courses in

management techniques would help chiefs of

paid departments compete for budgetary dollars with other municipal departments; such

courses would also help them recognize antiquated practices that should be abandoned

Special engineering courses would help fire

service managers to assess the relative advantages of different pieces of equipment on the

market.

l At the same time, the Academy could help fire

departments shift priorities toward fire prevention. One major barrier to such a shift has been

official doubt about the effectiveness of fire

prevention measures. Academy courses could

acquaint fire services officers, not only with fire

prevention practices that work, but also with

42 A NATIONAL FIRE ACADEMY

sound record keeping methods that prove that

they work.

l Officers educated by the Academy probably

would be sought far and wide, with the effect

that fire departments would be encouraged to

abandon parochial hiring practices.

Volunteer as well as paid fire departments have

need of a National Fire Academy. Many volunteer departments lack the resources for training

beyond a rudimentary level. Indeed, there are

many volunteer firefighters who, having never

been exposed to adequate training, don’t fully

appreciate how it could improve their performance and their safety. Their communities harbor

the same lack of appreciation, believing that

“adequate” fire protection is wholly a matter of

trucks and men to ride them. Because volunteers

are part-time firefighters with insufficient time to

undertake fire prevention activities, training in

that area has often been neglected. With a limited vision of their community role, many volunteer departments-but many paid departments as

well-have neglected training in such important

fields as arson investigation and fire-safe design of

structures.

As we have indicated, the Academy would not

supplant State and local training programs but

would assist them: by identifying and making

available course material and demonstration projects, by accrediting programs, and by lending

special instructors to these programs. In general,

State and local programs would continue to train

firefighters; the Academy’s own specialized

courses would be for officers and officer

candidates.

In addition, the National Fire Academy could

assist in the development of effective materials

for public education in fire safety. Assistance to

community fire prevention efforts could include,

in addition to information, financial support and

the lending of special personnel. The Academy

could also offer architects, engineers, code writers,

and code inspectors short courses in the fire aspects of those professions.

One problem that cries out for Academy attention is that of arson. As we pointed out in

Chapter 1, the National Fire Protection Association estimates that about 7 percent of the Nation’s fires are likely the work of arsonists. Many

urban fire chiefs believe the local incidence of
deliberately set fires is far higher. To mount a

concerted attack on arson will require the communication of intelligence and expertise from

every region and locality of the Nation. The

Commission recommends that the proposed National Fire Academy assume the role of developing, gathering, and disseminating, to State and

local arson investigators, information on arson

incidents and on advanced methods of arson investigations. Short courses, newsletters, and bulletins would be appropriate means of

communication.

Lastly, through newsletters and other media of

continuing education, the Academy could bring

to the attention of the Nation’s fire service leadership emerging problems and trends of the fire

services, pioneering efforts by individual fire departments, and new developments in fire protection technology.

While there is near-unanimity among fire protection organizations on the need for a National

Fire Academy, proposals regarding its structure

vary widely. The Commission recommends that

the National Fire Academy be organized as a

division of the proposed United States Fire Administration, which would assume responsibility

for deciding details of the Academy’s structure

and administration. We see the Academy as a

growing organism, the pattern of its growth being

determined by a careful and continuing assessment of the fire services’ needs. The U.S. Fire Administration would be in the best position to conduct this assessment.

One thing is certain: Federal support of the

National Fire Academy, both in its own programs

and those it assists at local levels, is vital. Volunteer firefighters and officers should not be expected to pay for their specialized training and

would probably be unable to take advantage of

the Academy’s offerings in great numbers if they

were required to do so. Paid firemen in many

communities are in no better position to get local

funds to subsidize their special training. The

Commission recommends that the full cost of

operating the proposed National Fire Academy

and subsidizing the attendance of fire service

members be borne by the Federal Government.

Federal assistance for members of paid and volunteer fire departments would cover cost of travel,

tuition, teaching materials, and accommodations.

Paid fire departments would be obligated to continue to pay the salaries of students. Full Federal

financing would not preclude acceptance by the

Academy of grants and other forms of support

from government and private sources.

Federal support of the National Fire Academy

is a worthwhile endeavor. Through the Academy,

the management capabilities of the fire services

can be improved. Priorities of fire departments

can be effectively shifted, through Academy training, in the direction of more fire prevention effort,

Man’s environment can be made less hazardous

through special courses in fire-safe design. And

most important, the National Fire Academy can

help to reduce life and property losses and injuries

from fire.

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

AMERICA BURNING 43

THE FIRE SERVICES

7

EQUIPPING THE FIRE FIGHTER

Of the fire chiefs and firefighters who responded

to our nationwide survey early in 1972, more than

seven out of ten said there is a need for greater innovation to improve the equipment and protective clothing they use every day.

And no wonder. A quick glimpse at firefighting

practices yields a sampling of where improvements can be made:

l The breathing apparatus designed for 30 minutes’ use typically weighs 30 pounds. Often

firefighters reach exhaustion long before their

30 minutes are up, The weight of the apparatus, it seems likely, contributes to the exhaustion. In actual use, moreover, a 30-minute

apparatus often provides less than 20 minutes’

protection because great exertion requires more

air.

l Most firefighters’ helmets readily conduct heat

to the inside of the helmet. Beyond certain temperatures, helmets made of hard plastics lose

strength and begin to deform. 

l Helmets and breathing apparatus alike tend to

get snagged by protruding objects. In many

instances, firemen wearing face masks cannot

put 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 body

movements or build up body heat, they contribute to the firefighter’s exhaustion.

l A fireman manipulating the controls of an

aerial ladder must peer upward many stories

to see how to guide the ladder into position. If

the smoke is too thick to see through, he must

have another firefighter, perched precariously

at the top of the ladder, giving him instructions

as he swings the ladder into position. AS

Howard W. Emmons, professor of mechanical

engineering at Harvard, pointed out in 1968,

"A man in Houston, Tex., can manipulate a

space ship photographing the moon, but the

fireman must climb up to the top of a 100-foot

ladder to find out just where it is.”

These and many other deficiencies have been

around for years, despite the great power of

American ingenuity to innovate to overcome

technological problems. Few equipment manufacturers can afford to invest heavily in research

and development, especially when the payoff in

a fragmented and conservative market is so unAMERICA BURNING 45
certain. Marketing is affected by the fact that

many fire departments simply cannot afford to

buy innovative equipment. Others purchase conservatively because they lack the technical expertise to evaluate innovative equipment. Because

firemen typically spend their careers with one department, they become attached to the “tried and

true” methods of that department.

Of course the fire services are not alone in facing barriers to innovation. In recent years there

has been growing recognition that the innovative

process-by which needs get translated into research and development projects, and the results

of research and development get translated into

new products or processes-throughout American

society can be improved. In his Message on Science and Technology in March 1972, the President assigned to the National Science Foundation

and the National Bureau of Standards responsibilities for finding ways to spur innovation. In

response, the National Science Foundation established an Experimental Research and Development Incentives Program to seek ways of “increasing the efficiency and speed of conversion of

research and development to new or improved

products, processes, and services.” The National

Bureau of Standards launched a similar effort,

called the Experimental Technology Incentives

Program.

The blockages to innovation in the fire services are many, and they offer a rich vein for

scientific prospectors. Moreover, the blockages

together form a major impediment to “improvements in the quality of life,” which the National

Science Foundation lists foremost among the

kinds of innovations to be spurred along. The

Commission urges the National Science Foundation, in its Experimental Research and Development Incentives Program, and the National

Bureau of Standards, in its Experimental Technology Incentives Program, to give high priority

to the needs of the fire services.

Guidelines for Research and Development

The fire services do not need innovation for the

sake of innovation, the way car manufacturers

need styling changes to assure themselves new

customers. The fire services need innovations in

equipment to improve their performance. Improved performance, in turn, can mean any of the

46 EQUIPPING THE FIRE FIGHTER

four following : saving more lives, reducing deaths

and injuries to firefighters, reducing property

losses, and protecting the public at lower cost.

Clearly, reducing life loss, reducing firefighter

injuries, and reducing property losses are prime

considerations. Improvements in these areas can

be made simultaneously. A firefighter better protected against injury to himself is, of course, better

equipped to suppress fires and rescue people. No

technological innovations designed to reduce life

and property losses should create new risks to

firefighters.

In all research and development efforts, then,

effectiveness in lowering firefighter injuries as well

as life and property losses should rank ahead of

dollar savings as a goal. Current technology, for

example, makes feasible automated control of hose

pressure at the scene of a fire and could free an

additional fireman-the one now operating the

controls on the truck manually-for service at the

nozzle end of a hose. Yet the job of the man on the

pumper is a complicated one. He must see to it

that men holding a hose line do not get thrown

by surges in pressure caused by unequal demands

from different hose lines. He must cut water pressure when crews are endangered by ladder sway

and cut pressure when hoses rupture. He must act

as a relief man for crews, a reserve for rescue of

fire victims, and a protector of the pumper from

vandalism. An automated system that left any of

these protective functions unprovided would be

an unacceptable substitute.

A second requirement of research and development is that they stem from an accurate assessWith few exceptions (such as this one),

firefighters’ helmets have changed little

in design and materials in 50 years.
ment of fire service needs. Almost any piece of

fire apparatus, for example, can be built bigger,

better, and more expensive, with a greater capacity to perform its expected functions and impress

the citizenry. But in the real world of tight fire

department budgets, trade-offs are needed. Thus,

the chief emphasis in the development of improved firefighting equipment should be on apparatus designed to meet most potential fire situations, rather than on equipment rarely needed.

More research is also needed to help settle questions of diversity versus standardization. Standardization of fire engine components is desirable

from the standpoint of bringing down costs. Diversity may be needed to meet the varying needs of

different communities. The best solutions may lie

in the middle-that is, with standard modules

that permit add-on features.

One fire department need that should not be

subjected to trade-off or compromise is safety. A

two-step program of research is needed: to identify features of firefighting equipment that do not

adequately protect firemen, then to explore means

of providing such protection.

Thirdly, research and development must take

whole systems, rather than piecemeal, approaches. The complete firefighter’s uniform

consists of turnout coat, trousers, boots, breathing

apparatus, gloves, and helmet. It may also consist

of a walkie-talkie radio strapped to the body ‘and

a hand-held flashlight. Each of these elements has

been designed separately without thought to its

relation to other parts of the uniform. One result

has already been cited: a breathing apparatus so

incompatible with the helmet that the two cannot

be worn together, whereas a face mask and helmet

could be an integrated unit. Turnout coat, trousers, and boots are separate items that take time

to don, whereas they could be replaced by a onepiece, zip-up suit. Walkie-talkies and flashlights

are cumbersome appendages, whereas both could

be integrated into the helmet. A further example:

Only the helmet is designed to protect against impact injuries (and that, very inadequately),

whereas many impact injuries occur on the trunk

of the body.

Much of the technology exists for better protective gear. Ideally, product development of an integrated system, not unlike the life support system

built into the individually tailored ‘astronauts’

suits, would afford optimum protection. On the

other hand, the hard realities of costs and ready

availability of the equipment must be considered

in approaching the ideal. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in fact, has put its

space exploration capabilities to work on the problems of developing better breathing apparatus and

better protective clothing for firefighters. As for

helmets with built-in communications systems,

they have long been in use by fighter pilots. To

provide protection from impact injuries, technology might be borrowed from bulletproof vests

or even from football players’ protective gear.

At the same time, research and development

are needed to make incremental improvements

in existing kinds of equipment. The search for

major departures from existing equipment, based

on a systems approach, should not be pursued at

the expense of development of improvements in

traditional equipment. There are two reasons for

this. First, the search for major departures is a

long-term investment, and results are not likely to

reach the market for several years to come. Secondly, fire departments cannot afford to discard

all the equipment they have now, and adoption

of major departures will be a slow process, extending over many years. Better versions of current

types of equipment will be needed for some time

to come.

A single example will suffice. Tests of six types

of turnout coats by the Boston Fire Department

have shown that, in each case, the material fails

the flammability test for drapery fabrics used in

places of public assembly. That more firefighters’

coats do not catch fire is due largely to the fact

that the heat on the fireman’s exposed hands and

face drives him from flames before his coat is

endangered. If hands and face can be adequately

protected-and the technology exists to do just

that-then there will have to be a corresponding

improvement in the flame resistance of turnout

coats.

A fifth consideration for research and development: improvements must be acceptable to fire

departments. Barriers to acceptance of an innovation are of several kinds. A new piece of equipment may be too expensive in absolute terms:

simply beyond a fire department’s budget. It may

‘be too expensive in relative terms-that is, offer

too little improvement in performance for the inAMERICA BURNING 47
vestment required. It may require skilled operators which fire departments are unable to provide

without further training. There can be psychological barriers as well; if an innovation departs

too radically from traditional practice, it will be

resisted.

A related consideration is that developed products need to be adapted to users’ capabilities.

Human factors engineering-that is, the modification of equipment design so that the equipment

is comfortable, safe, and easy to use-has been

applied with success to military and industrial

equipment but never, to our knowledge, to fire

trucks and other firefighting equipment.

A purchaser of fire equipment must be able

to make comparisons among different pieces of

equipment competing for his dollars. This means

that names for particular kinds of equipment,

descriptions of their functions, and measurements of their capacities should be uniform

throughout the fire protection field. While some

standardization exists, confusing discrepancies

are commonplace. One result of these discrepancies is that data cannot be compared across different fire jurisdictions; for example, a “rescue

truck” is an ambulance in some places, a pickup

that carries firefighters’ rescue equipment in another. The National Fire Protection Association

has published many standards for fire equipment

and an excellent guide called Fire Terminology.

But long-established traditions and local custom

have not given way totally to NFPA standards.

The Commission recommends that the proposed

United States Fire Administration review current practices in terminology, symbols, and

equipment descriptions, and seek to introduce

standardization where it is lacking.

Equipment R. & D.: Reducing Fire Losses

Research and development priorities ought to

stem from careful assessment of the needs of the

fire services. We can only suggest therefore, not

define, areas where research would be useful. The

following discussion is a mixture of subjects on

which little or no research is being done, subjects

on which progress is being made, and, indeed,

subjects in which demonstration projects have

already proved successful.

Notification. The beginning step in a fire

department’s effort to put out a fire is notifica48 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 telephone or alarm. Systems exist which sense smoke,

products of combustion, heat, or water flow (in

an activated sprinkler system) and notify the

fire department automatically. Improvements in

the technology of such systems, especially in bringing down their cost, might encourage more widespread use. Systems based on human activation

might be developed which ( 1) meet the criterion

of universal accessibility (as private telephones

do in many communities) and, at the same time,

(2) discourage false alarms (which account for

a third of the fire calls in many cities), and (3)

provide for the transmittal of qualitative information about the fire. Some cities are already

using public telephones which require no coins

for emergency calls. These telephones (if adequately maintained against breakdowns and vandalism), together with private telephones, would

substitute for fire alarm boxes.

Response. Computerized systems for dispatching firefighters and fire trucks have been installed in a number of cities. Into such systems

are being built retrieval mechanisms that transmit

to firefighters floor plans and other helpful information about the building on fire.

Suppression. Lights, periscopes, or closedcircuit TV might be mounted atop aerial ladders.

Sensors to locate trapped victims and chemical

detectors to warn of dangerous concentrations of

toxic gases are other possibilities. Infrared sensing

devices are available that can locate fires in smokefilled rooms and fires inside walls, but they need

development and demonstration of their usefulness to the fire services.

More research is needed on extinguishing

agents, hardware, and techniques, to improve the

effectiveness of existing agents and to investigate

the chemical and physical mechanisms of new

agents. Water, particularly in its droplet or stream

state, requires further study; there is a controversy,

for example, as to whether keeping buildings

closed and applying water fog is a suitable alternative to ventilating the fire and attacking with

water streams.

Additives that reduce friction losses in hoses

have proved their effectiveness, but are not widely

used. Foams and dry chemicals have proved their

effectiveness 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 of

knowledge in flame chemistry inhibits progress

toward radical departures from present extinguishing methods, such as the use of sound waves.

Lastly, development efforts should be directed

toward reducing the weight of suppression equipment, especially hoses and couplings.

Equipment R. & D.: Reducing Fire Fighter

Injuries

Especially in the realm of fire suppression, technological improvements which reduce firefighter

injuries will improve the effectiveness of fire departments in saving lives and reducing property

losses. Such improvements are worthy of pursuit

in their own right, since the risks we currently

ask firefighters to take are unconscionable. In

many cases, we must assume, the proper protective equipment is not available to firefighters-or,

if available, is not being worn. When firefighters

do not wear equipment because it is cumbersome

or uncomfortable, that is, to some extent, an indictment of the equipment.

Toxic fumes. The inadequacy of breathing

apparatus systems is shown by studies which indicate that face masks used by fire departments

leak to some extent. The National Bureau of

Standards has proposed a program of research

to improve breathing apparatus systems, taking

into account the physiological, human factors,

and engineering elements important to their design. The Commission urges rapid implementation of a program to improve breathing apparatus systems and expansion of the program’s

scope where appropriate.

Impact injuries. The only standard piece of

equipment meant to protect against injuries from

falling objects or other blows is the helmet. The

most common standard (which many helmets fail

to meet) is resistance against 40 foot-pounds of

impact. The British standard is three times as

high. No attention has been paid to impact protection in turnout coats, despite a Bureau of Labor

Statistics study which shows that impact injuries

to the trunk occur 26 times as often as trunk burn

injuries.

Over-exertion. While the very nature of firefighting invites over-exertion, there are technological improvements that undoubtedly would reduce

instances of over-exertion. Protective gear could be
improved from the standpoint of weight and freedom of bodily movement. In addition, lightweight

power tools-for example, for prying open doors

or cutting through walls-would also reduce the

need for physical exertion.

Strains and sprains. Lightweight power tools

would likely reduce strains as well. In addition,

failure to apply human factors engineering to the

design of firefighting equipment has led to strains

and sprains, as it has to over-exertion and other

kinds of casualties. What is needed, for these and

other classes of injuries, is thorough study of the

kinds of movements and stresses the body sustains

in firefighting.

Heat and burns. Equipment that leaves any

part of the body exposed, or which is easily ignited,

openly invites burns and heat injuries. Development of protective clothing to reduce these hazards should be accompanied by the development

of sensing devices that can warn the firefighter

when surrounding temperatures are getting

dangerous.

Getting on With the Job

The foregoing discussion is hardly exhaustive.

There needs to be undertaken a definitive study

of the needs of the fire services. Such a study

would have to do more than aggregate what fire

departments say they want; it would have to

identify needs growing out of demonstrable shortcomings of current equipment.

The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration undertake a

continuing study of equipment needs of the fire

services, monitor research and development in

progress, encourage needed research and development, disseminate results, and provide

grants to fire departments for equipment procurement to stimulate innovation in equipment

design. As an interim measure, pending establishment of a U.S. Fire Administration, the Commission urges the Join Council of National Fire

Service Organizations to sponsor a study to

identify shortcomings of firefighting equipment

and the kinds of research, development, or technology transfer that can overcome the deficiencies. Funding would be appropriately sought

from the National Science Foundation or from

the Department of Commerce under the provisions of the Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968.

Capabilities for research and development to

improve the effectiveness of the fire services lie in

many places : universities, Federal agencies, nonprofit research firms, and the fire equipment industry. Research and development in these places

will be useful if they are guided by clearly identified needs of the fire services.

Especially as firefighting equipment grows

more complex, it must be designed

to be comfortable, safe, and easy to use.

AMERICA BURNING 51

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

8

THE HAZARDS WE HAVE CREATED

The United States is an advanced nation technologically and is increasingly urban in character.

Another way of saying this is that most Americans

live in an environment of concentrated man-made

objects. Their homes-which are generally close

to neighboring homes (and sometimes in the

same building) -are complexes of building materials, finishes, chemicals, paper, foodstuffs, and

utility systems, all composed of objects processed

by man. When the American breadwinner goes

off to work in the morning, he may cross over a

small patch of natural environment called a lawn.

But when he arrives at the carport or the street

corner, he enters another complex, man-made

environment : a car, a bus, or a subway. At

work-whether it is a factory bench, an office

desk, or a sales counter-he is usually among a

concentration of people in a similarly complicated

environment of man-made objects, And when the

vacationing urbanite seeks escape from this manmade environment, the usual conveyance is a

man-made enclosure: if not a car or bus, then a

train or airplane.

In this built environment, as it is called,

Americans live side by side, day and night, with

ignitable materials, combustible furniture and upholstery, and products and appliances which

through wear or misuse may offer dangerous fire

potential. Fumes from their gasoline, their paint

thinner, or their cleaning fluid fill the atmosphere

with combustion potential. The structures in

which they live and work, through flaws in design

and poor maintenance, often encourage entrapment rather than escape from fire. Few give these

hazards any thought-until a fire occurs.

Available statistics give some idea, if not a complete picture, of where the hazards lie in the built

environment. Certainly the vast majority-close

to 95 percent-of America’s fire losses, both life

and property, result from fires in the built environment. Fires in buildings (as opposed to vehicle fires)’ account for most of these losses. Of

the nearly $2.7 billion in property losses sustained

yearly, about 85 cents out of every dollar lost is

attributable to a building fire. About two-thirds of

the 12,000 deaths that occur annually result from

building fires. What types of buildings are involved offer a key to where the emphasis should

lie in the effort to reduce the Nation’s fire losses

(Table 8-1) .

1 In 1971, 3,950 died in motor vehicle fires; property

losses from such fires amounted to $112.7 million or about

4 percent of the total national fire problem. Fires in other

transportation systems, such as airplanes, were insignificant

in number. but are of concern to us because of the many

lives 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 Fires

Category

Number Percent Dollars, Percent Number Percent

of total Millions of total of total

Residential (houses, apartments and hotels). 6,600 56 874.1 31.9 699,000 25.6

Commercial (Public assembly, educational,

institutional, mercantile and office). 970 8

580.5 21.1 141,400 5.2

industrial (basic industry, storage, manufacturing and miscellaneous) 811.6 29.6 156,500 5.7

Building total 7,570 64 $2,266.2 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 occurred in 1971, almost seven out of ten occurred in

residential occupancies (Table 8-1)2. The

chances are that the average family will experience one fire every generation serious enough to

have the fire department respond. Residential

fires account for about half of all fire deaths and

a third of all property losses. (If the losses from

non-building fires are excluded, residential fires

account for about 87 percent of the deaths and 39

percent of these property losses [Figure 8-1])

From the standpoint of life loss particularly, the

structures in which Americans live must be the

prime focus of the national effort to reduce fire

losses.

3 This includes apartments, dwellings, hotels and motels,

rooming and boarding houses, summer cottages, trailers,

mobile homes, and miscellaneous structures.

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

The experience of every urban fire department

confirms what statistics only suggest: that a disproportionate number of residential fires-and

fire deaths-occur in low-income neighborhoods.

It is not difficult to see why. Crowded conditions,

dilapidated buildings, unsafe heaters, and the

heavy use of alcohol-all contribute to a higher

incidence of fire and a heavier toll in injuries and

deaths. The higher proportion of working mothers

means more children are left unattended and,

hence, more exposed to fire accidents. The

ignorance among the poor about fire hazards is

matched by the indifference or inability of landlords to get rid of the hazards.

But as every urban firefighter can attest, fire

does not victimize the poor only. There is no

ground for complacency about residential fires

among more affluent citizens. 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 a

slum, a single spark can set off a chain of events

that guts a mansion and kills its inhabitants. Fire,

like sin, knows no class distinctions.

Commercial and Industrial Fires 3

While commercial occupancies make up about

14 percent of all building fires, they result in 25

percent of the Nation’s property loss in building

fires. Likewise, industrial fires are only about 16

percent of all building fires but account for 36 percent of the building property loss. Together, industrial and commercial fires account for 13 percent of deaths in building fires (Figure 8-1) .

Major Fires

The National Fire Protection Association defines

3“Commercial” includes public and institutional occupancies, 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 or

greater. (Some fires, of course, meet both

criteria.)

In 1971, there were 208 fires in which three or

more persons died, but together these fires accounted for 8 percent of the fire deaths that

occurred during that year. In eight out of ten

cases, these major fires occurred in residences. In

many instances, late detection of the residential

fires contributed to the heavy losses in lives and

property-as indicated by the fact that about 80

percent of the multiple-death fires occurred between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. when most people are

asleep, as compared with the 20 percent that

occurred between 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. when people are active.

Those fires producing major property losses

were also a tiny fraction of total fires (0.02 perAMERICA 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 the

dollar losses in 1971. In all these cases the Building

was not sprinklered in the area where the fire

originated.

Causes and Remedies

It appears that considerably more than half the

Nation’s fires are caused by the careless actions of

man. The rest have environmental causes, such

as hazardous products, defects in the home, and

lightning. A more detailed analysis of the causes

of building fires is provided annually by the National Fire Protection Association (see Table

8-2). These are approximations only, based on

experience in typical States. As for causes of firerelated deaths, data from Canada (there are no

comparable U.S. statistics) attribute 71 percent

of deaths to man’s actions, 9 percent to products

or processes, and 20 percent to defects in buildings.

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

Percent of Percent of

fires dollar losses

Heating and cooking

Smoking and matches

Electrical

Rubbish, ignition source

unknown

Flammable liquid fires and

explosion

Open flames and sparks

Lightning

Children and matches

Exposures

Incendiary, suspicious

Spontaneous ignition

Miscellaneous known

causes

Unknown

3

7

7

2

7

2

7

2

Total

16 8

12 4

16 12

2 6

17 4 4

100

1

3

4

2

3

2

10

1

100

*NFPA estimates.

The consequences of a fire depend, however,

not only on how it starts, but on what happens

after ignition. Human beings can intervene to

lessen the consequences of a fire caused by a defective product. Products can be designed to lessen the consequences of human carelessness, as

for example, with matches and cigarettes. And

whatever the cause of a fire, buildings can be

designed and maintained to ease fire suppression

and the evacuation of potential fire victims. The

AMERICA BURNING 57
INDUSTRIAL FIRE SAFETY

Although it is recognized that there are still

other important areas for problem solving, it

would be a serious omission if no note were

taken of the many positive strides which have

been made in the prevention and control of fires

by industry, Comparisons of the industrial and

residential losses in the United States show that

industry appears far in advance in terms of the

relative number of lives lost and the dollar

amount of property destroyed. In 1971, for example, the National Fire Protection Association reported the dollar losses to basic industry

and manufacturing occupancies to be $390,-

700,000, versus $874,100,000 for residential occupancies; and of the 11,850 lives lost to fire in

1971, it is estimated fewer than 1,000 were lost

in industry. In addition, the chart below shows a

trend in decreasing numbers of fires annually

in industry.

Industrial Fire Record”

Year

Number of basic

Industry and

Manufacturing fires

1968 66,000

1969 58,500

1970 56,200

1971 41,300

*NFPA published estimates.

Industry’s success in lowering fire incidence is

attributable to the incorporation of features

such as sound construction, special attention to

hazards, emergency planning, and wide use of

automatic detection, alarm, and extinguishing

devices.

consequences of fire, in short, depend on manenvironment interactions.

We have already addressed the issue of what

fire departments can do to reduce fire losses. In

Chapter 20 we discuss what citizens can do to

reduce fire losses. In this and the next four chapters, our concern is not with the human factors

but with ways of altering the built environment

to reduce fire hazards-through changes in fire

safety technology, materials characteristics, building design and construction, and code regulation

and 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 manenvironment interaction that tends to be overlooked. The ways in which man acts upon the

environment to cause fire come readily to mind.

What is not so obvious is that the built environment influences the behavior of man in a way

that aggravates the fire problem.

The modern urban environment imparts to

people a false sense of security about fire. Crime

may stalk the city streets, but certainly not fire,

in most people’s view. In part, this sense of security rests on the fact there have been no major

conflagrations in American cities in more than

half a century. In part, the newness of so many

buildings conveys the feeling that they are invulnerable to attack by fire. Those who think only

of a building’s basic structure (not its contents)

are satisfied, mistakenly, that the materials-concrete, steel, glass, aluminum-are indestructible

by fire. Further, Americans tend to take for

granted that those who design their products, in

this case buildings, always do so with adequate

attention to their safety. That assumption, too, is

incorrect.

Around the turn of the century, in the wake of

many conflagrations so-called fireproof buildings

began to be constructed. They had thick walls and

floors to keep fire from spreading. Like older

buildings, they still had windows that could be

opened to allow heat and smoke to escape. They

had fire escapes or internal fire stairs, and seldom

were they too tall for the topmost occupants to

escape.

Fires, some of them disastrous, occurred in

these buildings nonetheless. Then, after World

War II, a new generation of buildings began to

appear : the modern high-rise building. Lighter

construction systems and many new materials

were used, especially for interiors. Windows were

permanently sealed so that central air conditioning would operate efficiently. Walls and floors

were left with openings for air conditioning ducts

and utility cables. Each of these features compromised the fire safety of these buildings.

The built environment was created to serve

the needs of people. When a portion of that environment goes up in smoke, those needs are not

being served. How the hazards in the built environment can be reduced is the subject to which

we 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

9

THE HAZARDS

CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS

The dazzling terminal buildings at New York’s

John F. Kennedy Airport are virtually a museum

of contemporary architecture. But one of those

buildings has demonstrated that man’s monuments to his technological genius can turn on him

with a vengeance, at the mere touch of a flame.

The new west wing of the British Overseas Airways Corporation building at Kennedy International had not yet been opened to the public when,

on August 26, 1970, it caught fire-probably at

the hands of an arsonist. Swiftly, flames moved

from one seat to the next along the 330-foot length

of the wing. Gases from the incomplete combustion of the seats gathered in clouds along the ceiling. When flames approached the clouds, the

gases ignited explosively, spreading the fire and

igniting other groups of seats. The explosions

knocked out the terminal’s huge glass windows.

As the ceiling melted, combustible liquid dripped

toward the floor, further spreading the fire. In the

end, all 600 seats in the wing were consumed.

Damages totaled $2 million. The seats, which

played the predominant role in spreading the fire,

were like those in many airline terminals: layers

of plastic and rubber foam covered by plastic

upholstery material.

No lives were lost in the BOAC terminal fire.

But 3 months later, a synthetic material was implicated in a fire that killed 145 teenagers. It happened in a door-locked dance hall in St. Laurentdu-Pont, France, that had been lavishly sprayed

with a plastic foam to give the appearance of a

cave. The fire raged furiously within seconds after

it began, leaping “like a red panther in a small

cage, ” in the words of one survivor,

By no means do synthetics stand alone as hazardous materials. A frame house can be a tinderbox. Restaurants decorated with natural materials, basements full of old newspapers and

warehouses storing lumber or paper products provide the fuel for major fires. Inadequately protected structural elements of steel or concrete still

collapse if a fire is intense enough. Burning silk

and wool release deadly quantities of carbon

monoxide and cyanide gas-and these and many

other natural materials ignite at lower temperatures than many synthetics do. Plastics manufacturers contend that synthetics based on carbon,

hydrogen, and oxygen exclusively are generally

no more toxic, when burned, than natural materials. On the other hand, other synthetics containing sulfur and the halogens are not so

innocuous

Although plastics production has doubled in the

AMERICA BURNING 61
past 7 years, it is only about one-tenth that of

wood, paper, and associated products. The contribution of plastics to the fuel load in buildings,

especially older buildings where fires occur more

frequently, is therefore certainly well under 10

percent. But their use is increasing. Wool rugs are

giving way to synthetic fibers, wooden desk tops

to plastics made to look like wood, glass lighting

diffusers to clear plastic panels. There is hardly a

use to which “classical” materials have been put

that has not been challenged by synthetics.

Clearly, the advantages which plastics offer to

consumers and manufacturers are many, and plastics will fill an increasingly large proportion of the

built environment.

What makes plastics relevant to our discussion

of materials is not only that many of them have

introduced hazards previously uncommon, but

that they are sold and used without adequate

attention to the special fire hazards they present.

The major investigation of the ‘fire problem of

some plastics by the Federal Trade Commission

has highlighted a form of misleading representation 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 safety

standards for materials have emphasized flame

resistance. Yet, in a list of the five ways in which

fire can kill, when arranged in declining importance, flames rank last.1

Asphyxiation. Fire consumes oxygen from the

surrounding atmosphere, thus reducing its concentration. If the oxygen concentration falls below

1

 This ranking and much of the following discussion is

from Irving N. Einhorn, director of the Flammability Research 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 coordination difficult. Below 16 percent, attempts to

escape the fire may be ineffective or irrational,

wasting vital seconds, With further drops, a person loses his muscular coordination for skilled

movements, and muscular effort leads rapidly to

fatigue. His breathing ceases when the oxygen

content falls below 6 percent. At normal temperatures, he would be dead in 6 to 8 minutes.

Attack by superheated air or gases. With temperatures above 300° F., loss of consciousness or

death can occur within several minutes. In addition, hot smoke with a high moisture content is a

special danger since it destroys tissues deep in the

lungs by burning.

Smoke. Inhalation of smoke-or, more correctly, of the products of incomplete combustion-kills people who suffer no skin burns at all.

In addition to carrying toxic products, such as

carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide, thick

smoke may be laden with organic irritants, such

as acetic acid and formaldehyde. In the early

stages of a fire, the irritants, which attack the mucous membranes of the respiratory tract, are often

the more important danger. Smoke often blocks

the visibility of exits.

Toxic products. Many toxic components of

smoke are responsible for the damage done-including oxides of nitrogen, aldehydes, hydrogen

cyanide, sulfur dioxide, and ammonia, to name

only a few. There is ample evidence that the hazard of two or more toxic gases is greater than the

sum of the hazards of each. Moreover, low oxygen

and high temperatures increase the toxic effects.

In addition to toxic gases that attack the lungs,

there are irritants that attack the eyes with blinding effect, preventing escape. Some fire gases dull

the senses of the victim or his awareness of injury.

Flames. Since the aforementioned factors can

debilitate, confuse, blind, or kill without warning,

the person who goes to sleep confident that advancing flames will provide sufficient warning for

escape may be taking a fatal gamble.

Until such time as all five of these hazards

have been well-studied and controlled by materials standards, too little will have been done to

control the built environment and thus reduce

the gamble Americans take in their daily lives.

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

spread flames-may have increased the life

hazard, since the incomplete combustion of many

materials treated to increase fire retardancy results in heavy smoke and toxic gases. The technology of fire-retardance is often unsatisfactory

in other respects: The additives are generally

costly, can reduce the strength and weather resistance of the material to which they are applied,

and often lose their effectiveness through washing

or prolonged exposure to the elements.

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Damage

That concern about flames alone is insufficient is

pointed up by the ample evidence that smoke and

toxic gases are powerful forces of destruction.

Smoke from restaurant fires renders uncontainered food unusable ; fabrics permeated by smoke

can be altered beyond use even after cleaning.

And a little smoke can go a long way: A department store recently lost $100,000 of its merchandise and 3 days’ business for cleanup-all

because of smoke that seeped through walls from

an adjoining building on fire.

Again, efforts to make materials flame-resistant

have not always been beneficial. The sooty smoke

given off by many of these materials leaves a thick,

black coating on whatever it touches. Moreover,

the chemical compounds added to reduce combustibility often contain halogens (bromine, chlorine, 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 annually on research to improve the fire safety of

their products. That organization issued to manufacturers, in 1964, a fire safety bulletin setting

flammability standards for cellular plastics, Fire

resistance or fire classification standards for all

sorts of construction materials are set by such

organizations as the American Society for Testing

and Materials and the National Fire Protection

Association. Building codes incorporate many of

these standards. Underwriters’ Laboratories, Factory Mutual Research Corp., and other organizations test materials to see that they comply with

such standards.

Yet, for all these efforts, the American public

remains inadequately protected from combustion

hazards in their midst.

AMERICA BURNING 63
Smoke and toxic gases have been underrated

hazards. Recognition of these hazards has come

belatedly, with the result that there is still little

understanding, and hence little quantifiable

knowledge, of the destructive effects of smoke

and toxic gases.

As a result, there are no nationally recognized

test methods for measuring smoke production

(both rate and amount), The American Society

for Testing and Materials does have a tunnel test

which measures the density of smoke produced.

Development of more sophisticated tests-for

example, ones which would measure toxic and

corrosive products of combustion-is hampered

by the complexity of the smoke problem. A single

material can give off many different products of

combustion under varying conditions of temperature, humidity, pressure, and other factors; buming cellulose, for example, can produce 96

different compounds.

Most tests do not simulate complexities of real

fires. Nationally recognized test methods for

evaluating the ignition and flame-spread hazards

of conventional materials in conventional applications may not be appropriate for evaluating

these materials when used in new ways or for

evaluating new materials.

For example, the ASTM’s tunnel test for

building materials, devised long before the advent of plastics, would register a low rate of flame

spread for a particular plastic, whereas, in a real

fire environment, that same material will bum

with an explosive intensity. As a result, architects, design engineers, building contractors, and

ultimately the consuming public may grossly misinterpret or inappropriately extrapolate those test

results as indicative of fire safety.

Existing large- and small-scale tests suffer from

an inability to predict exact consequences of a

real fire, particularly those involving foamed

plastics. Improvement of test methods is dependent, to a large degree, on a better understanding of the basic processes of ignition and

combustion and the mechanisms of fire retardancy and smoke generation and correlating these

with actual fire experiences, The Commission

recommends that research in the basic processes

of ignition and combustion be strongly increased

to provide a foundation for developing improved

test methods.

The economic interests of manufacturers, installers, vendors, and others often run counter to

stringent fire safety requirements. For example,

in many West Coast communities, because of industry pressures and public preferences, building

codes do not outlaw untreated wood shingle roofs,

despite their potential for spreading fire.

Some important hazards are not covered by

building codes. The fire safety requirements of

building codes apply mostly to construction materials and interior materials used on walls and ceilings. Comparatively little attention has been paid

to floors and floor coverings, since in the past their

contribution to fire spread was minimal. The advent of synthetic rugs and tiles has made greater

attention to floors imperative.

Building codes do not cover interior furnishings. While most political jurisdictions that have

building codes also have fire prevention codes,

designed to ensure fire safety after a building is

constructed and occupied, the fire prevention

codes, too, have little to say about interior furnishings. Moreover, seldom do fire prevention codes

apply to private dwellings. Interior furnishings

are not regulated partly because they are felt to

be the province of the owner or tenant and partly

because until recently there was no motivation to

develop tests on which to base code provisions.

They would, indeed, be difficult to regulate, since

they are subject to continuing change.

While furnishings are likely to remain outside

of code provisions, the fact that they contribute

significantly to combustion hazards means that

building codes only partly satisfy the demands of

fire safety. The present practice can be compared

to installing a burglar alarm at the front door and

leaving the back door wide open. Only to a limited extent is this mitigated by Federal flammability standards for fabrics.

Consumers use materials with inadequate

knowledge of their combustion hazards. Except

for flammable liquids and the materials that are

used in appliances and wiring, few of the materials that go into the home carry labels vouchsafing their fire resistance or warning of their

hazards. The unlabeled hazards are found in

draperies, rugs, storage cabinets, upholstered

chairs, and other furniture. At present, the housewife working at the kitchen range has no way of

knowing 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 fire

resistance of the wood they simulate, and

some synthetic garments burn furiously.

head are an invitation to a disastrous fire if their

surface is a hot-dip polystyrene coating. A sudden

flare-up from burning grease in a skillet might

readily ignite the finish on the cabinets, and in no

time at all fire could spread explosively throughout the kitchen.

Clearly, homeowners and building tenants need

to know the relative hazards of furnishings as well

as other materials so that they can minimize the

risks, Fire inspectors, whether enforcing a fire prevention code or educating homeowners and tenants, need to know the hazards to carry out their

tasks effectively,

New Efforts by Government and Industry

Federal initiative is needed to help close the gaps

left by the voluntary action of industry and the

loopholes in material standards and building

codes.

In 1972 Congress created the Consumer Product Safety Commission, authorizing it to “conduct research, studies, and investigations on the

safety of consumer products and on improving the

safety of such products.” The Commission can

set standards of composition and design which

66 THE HAZARDS CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS
consumer products must meet; it can require

labeling of hazards or instructions for safe use;

it can ban products that present “an unreasonable risk of injury.”

The materials that go into the built environment come under the purview of the Consumer

Product Safety Commission. This Commission

recommends that the new Consumer Product

Safety Commission give a high priority to the

combustion hazards of materials in their end use.

Specific needs are refined understanding of the

destructive effects of smoke and toxic gases, development of standards to minimize those effects,

development of labeling requirements for materials, and outright ban of materials in uses that

present unreasonable risks.

The development of a labeling system identifying combustion hazards is especially important.

The purpose of such a system is not to regulate

the lives of Americans, as an overly rigorous set

of standards would do, but to enable consumers

to evaluate the combustion hazards of the materials and products they bring into their homes.

Further, in public buildings, nursing homes, and

other occupancies subject to regulation, the labeling system would enable inspectors to verify adherence to fire load requirements. Though considerable research and testing would be needed,

the eventual goal of the labeling program should

be to identify fuel contribution, smoke production, and the production of toxic and corrosive

gases, as well as such characteristics as ignition

temperature and flame spread.

We feel we should be candid in expressing our

concern that, because the Consumer Product

Safety Commission is still in its formative stages,

and because other hazards (many of them better

publicized than combustion hazards) will be

competing for attention, the problem of fire safety

may become a delayed priority. The Consumer

Product Safety Commission could, on the other

hand, give early and deserved attention to the

problem of fire safety by tapping the research

capabilities of the National Bureau of Standards, 

universities, the national standards and testing

organizations, and private industry, through contracts and cooperative arrangements.

Indeed, we do not see the Consumer Product

Safety Commission supplanting the efforts in the

private sector, but complementing them, For one

thing, the program we have recommended is extensive and long-range. Protection of the public

cannot await completion of such a program;

other steps must be taken. Material producers

owe to various publics----building designers, code

officials, fire service personnel, and consumers

an expanded and more candid effort to explain

the fire charactertistics of the materials they sell.

Further, the emergence of labeling requirements for materials will not eliminate the need for

technical reports-that is, papers describing test

data in detail. There will continue to be a body

of technically oriented users who need detailed

analyses.

Technically oriented users will, for example,

have to have knowledge of fuel loads beyond that

provided by the labeling system. In this connection, the Commission recommends that the

present fuel load study sponsored by the Gcnera1 Services Administration and conducted by

the National Bureau of Standards be expanded

to update the technical study of occupancy fire

loads. The information in the National Bureau

of Standards’ “Building Materials and Structures

# 149,” a report on various fire loads found in different occupancies, published in 1957, is now

largely out of date.

Flammable Fabrics

In 1971, the Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare reported that, in recent years, more

than 3,000 Americans die annually after their

clothing catches on fire, and more than 150,000

are injured from this cause. One out of four

whose clothing catches fire is a child under 10.

Those 65 and over account for 15 percent of the

clothing fires, even though they are less than 10

percent of the Nation’s population. The very

young and the old are also the persons least able

to tolerate burns.

When clothing catches fire, the extent and

depth of burns arc more severe than skin burns

on uncovered areas; from the standpoint of fire

safety, the human species would be better off

naked. A recent study by the National Burn Information Exchange showed that clothing burn

victims were four times more likely to die than

burn victims spared clothing fire. Their burns

covered nearly twice as much body surface.

The power to set flammability standards for

AMERICA BURNING 67
fabrics now resides with the Consumer Product

Safety Commission. During the 5 years that the

flammable fabrics program was shared by the

Department of Commerce, the Federal Trade

Commission, and the Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare, only a few standards

were promulgated : those for young children’s

sleepwear (up to size 6X), rugs, small carpets,

and mattresses.

These standards do nothing to protect the

elderly smoker, the housewife whose sleeve passes

over the kitchen burner, or the group of 8-yearolds playing with fire in a vacant lot. Notably

they bypass most children between the ages of

five and nine, who account for 13 percent of

clothing fire accidents.

The Commission recommends that flammability standards for fabrics be given high priority

by the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Specific needs are research to improve fire retardant processes, extension of flammability standards

to further categories of fabric use, development of

labeling requirements for other categories, and

educational efforts to make consumers aware of

fire hazards from clothing and other fabrics. The

Commission does not favor unbridled extension

of flammability standards to all categories of

fabrics. Only grossly hazardous fabrics and fabrics

implicated in a very large number of fire accidents should be banned from the marketplace.

A preferable direction of emphasis is toward

labeling requirements as to combustion hazards.

This would honor the cherished principle of free

choice, while at the same time informing consumers of potential risks and reminding them of the

importance of fire. If reinforced by consumer

education on fire safety, labeling requirements

would have the effect of spurring manufacturers

to improve the flame-resistance of fabrics.

Fireworks

One material hazard that has declined over the

years, but not to the point of negligible concern,

is fireworks. In recent years, fireworks have

claimed an average of about 600 reported injuries

and 10 deaths annually. Sixty years ago the annual toll from fireworks was more than 5,000

injuries and 200 deaths.

In 1938, the National Fire Protection Association published its “Model State Fireworks Law”

(NFPA 494L), which, where enacted, prohibits

the use of all fireworks except those in supervised

public display?. Today, a majority of Americans

remain insufficiently protected from fireworks

accidents, since only 18 States have laws as stringent as the NFPA's model law and an additional

eight have laws similar to the model but with

exceptions. The Commission recommends that

all States adopt the Model State Fireworks Law

of the National Fire Protection Association, thus

prohibiting all fireworks except those for public

displays.”

The Importance of Research

Adequate regulation of materials in the built

environment depends upon adequate testing,

and adequate testing, in turn, depends on

adequate understanding of combustion and its

hazards. That is not to say, however, that progress cannot be made at all three levels simultaneously.

Improved testing methods are being pursued.

Scientists and engineers at the National Bureau

of Standards, for example, are utilizing a smoke

chambler which measures, in addition to the

density and rate of smoke produced by a sample,

the concentration of specific gases emitted. Experts there and elsewhere arc improving devices

for measuring heat release, ignitability, flame

spread, and fire endurance. Other scientists are

working on model testing techniques to simulate

the conditions of full-scale fires,

The technology for more sophisticated testing

and the technology for basic research on fire overlap, and the two activities go hand-in-hand. It is

appropriate that the National Bureau of Standards continue to provide leadership in both these

areas. The Consumer Product Safety Commission should champion the strengthening of NBS

efforts in these areas. At the same time, ongoing

efforts of university scientists, manufacturers, and

industrial testing laboratories should be encouraged and expanded.

3 The National Society for the Prevention of Blindness.

Inc., lists the following groups as supporting the limitation

of all fireworks to licensed public displays only: the

American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public

Health Association, the California Fire Chiefs Association,

the Fire Marshals Association of North America, the International Association of Fire Chiefs. the National Fire

Protection Association, the National Safety Council the

National Society for the Prevention of Blindness, Optimist

International.

68 THE HAZARDS CREATED THROUGH MATERIALS
One basic goal of research should be to improve

understanding of the dynamics of fire-not of

flames alone, but of smoke, heat, toxic gases, and

oxygen depletion, which together cause more

deaths than flames do. The Commission recommends that the Department of Commerce be

funded to provide grants for studies of combustion dynamics and the means of its control.

Medical research is also pertinent. In Chapter 2

we recommended that the National Institutes of

Health undertake a major program of research

concerning smoke inhalation injuries. One outgrowth of that research should be new knowledge

concerning human tolerances of various products

of combustion. From this knowledge standards

can be derived setting maximum allowable outputs of various products of combustion for materials. The Commission recommends that the

National Bureau of Standards and the National

Institutes of Health cooperatively devise and implement a set of research objectives designed to

provide combustion standards for materials to

protect human life. It would be appropriate for

NIH to bring these objectives to the attention

of the community of medical scientists, to incorporate appropriate objectives in its own research programs, and to transmit to the Consumer

Product Safety Commission pertinent research

results.

A Question of Priorities

The hazards of materials in the built environment will never be eliminated completely, and

they cannot be significantly reduced overnight.

Tinderbox houses will remain in the environment until economic circumstances favor their

replacement or until wear and tear dictate their

removal. In settings where we are forced to live

with hazardous materials, we must turn to engineering means-automatic sprinklers, for

example, or early-warning detection and alarm

systems-to compensate for the dangers. But for

the future, we as a Nation cannot rely on these

systems alone to protect us; the materials themselves must be improved for fire safety. True, a

building constructed of fire-safe materials and

having an automatic extinguishing system as well

offers a certain redundancy of protection. But one

without the other leaves open possibilities of

disaster.

AMERICA BURNING 69

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

10

HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN

In the afternoon of August 5, 1970, fire broke out

on the 33rd floor of One New York Plaza in lower

Manhattan. The air conditioning system spread

smoke throughout the building. Smoke and hot

gases shot upward through the gaps between floor

slabs and exterior walls. An elevator was automatically summoned to the 33d floor, the products

of combustion activating the call button. The

elevator jammed there, and two people died.

Other features of high-rise design contribute

to the hazards of fire: sealed windows that cause

heat to build up, interior materials that give off

thick smoke and toxic gases when afire, utility

channels and other gaps in walls and floors that

spread smoke and gases. Elevators can be death

traps. Exitways can very quickly become overcrowded. When fire breaks out on upper floors,

beyond the reach of ladders, firefighters must lug

heavy hoses up the stairways.

From the standpoint of life loss, high-rise buildings have made a very small contribution until

now. But they are a matter of special concern.

Recent high-rise fires in other countries with

heavy life loss suggest that luck may run out for

the United States. On Christmas Day, 1971, 163

died in a hotel fire in Seoul, Korea. Two months

later, 16 died and 375 were injured when fire

consumed a high-rise in Sao Paulo, Brazil. As

more and more Americans choose to live or work

in high-rise buildings, their importance as a fire

problem will increase.

But high-rise buildings are not the only modern

creation in which design impairs fire safety. In

many homes, stairwells help to carry fire and the

products of combustion upward to sleeping areas.

Slim horizontal windows under the eaves of singlestory dwellings-a fashionable feature of ranchstyle homes-hamper rescue efforts. Two children

died in a Maine fire because firemen couldn’t

get through windows of this type. Tragedies of

this sort have recurred many times,

Clearly, fire safety lags behind other considerations, such as aesthetics and economy, in the design of buildings. There are a number of reasons

for this.

Fire safety analysis is lagging behind innovation

in building design. For example, there is an

understandable trend toward ever-lighter structural members which reduce the cost without significantly reducing strength. Building designers

introduce these innovations while two important

questions go unanswered. First, arc the structural

AMERICA BURNING 71
members adequately protected from fire for the

entire life of the building as well as during a fire

that may occur tomorrow? Second, are existing

tests for fire safety adequate for measuring the

fire protection afforded by the particular

innovation?

There is little incentive to invest in fire

safety. Clients of building designers, to the extent that they think of fire safety at all, believe

fire is a small risk in the future of their building.

Or they judge that potential losses are adequately

covered by their insurance policies. Owners of

private homes might build in fire protection if

their insurance premiums were thereby reduced,

but no such incentive exists. While the reducedpremium exists for builders of commercial and industrial building?, the fire safety requirements for

reduced rates often are not extensive.

For the designer, the chief goals are to plan a

building that serves its intended architectural

function, as pleasing in appearance as can be

done, and as cheaply as possible. With top priority

being placed on these goals safety becomes, for

most designers, nothing more than a necessary

evil for compliance with local codes.

Building codes have characteristics which encourage the outlook that they are nuisances.

New requirements are piled on top of old and

outmoded ones, with the effect that the codes

become increasingly inflexible. Often the requirements are excessive : For example, in places where

the contents that will be added would all burn in

about half an hour, requirements for 3 to 4

hours of fire resistance in bearing walls are not

uncommon. While excessive requirements exist

for some characteristics, early warning of occupants, smoke movement, and toxic gas production

are virtually ignored.

Tested uses and actual uses of materials can

be two different things. The set of conditions

under which materials are tested by manufacturers and private test laboratories may represent

only a segment of the uses to which those materials are actually put. When a designer uses a

material in a way that has not been tested, he

has no way of knowing how or whether the fire

safety characteristics are different.

The knowledge on which fire safety standards

are based is deficient. Fire safety standards are

based mostly on judgments gained from actual

72 HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN

fire experience and on a limited range of conditions used in testing. They are based, in other

words, on empirical knowledge rather than

fundamental understanding of the behavior of

fire. This lack of theoretical and experimental underpinnings contrasts sharply with such fields as

mechanical or electrical engineering. In the latter

field, for example, the effects of changing the

diameter of a wire, or the design of a circuit, or

the amount of current pushed through the system

can be expressed as mathematical equations and

predicted quite accurately. If such equations

could be written to predict the effects of fire and

its combustion products, then changes in a material or its use would lead to known changes

in fire safety characteristics-without expensive

testing.

From Research to Application

In 1969, the Committee on Fire Research of the

National Research Council published its report,

A Proposed National Fire Research Program.

Thorough in its scope, the report will provide a

helpful guide to fire research priorities in the

decade of the Seventies. Much of the basic research on fire behavior recommended by the

report will have a bearing on how buildings

ought to be designed to minimize fire hazards.

Four years have passed since the report was

issued. An assessment of what has been accomplished thus far is imperative. In areas of research

where an added push is needed, additional research should be encouraged. In areas where results have begun to come in, efforts should be

made, to incorporate the new information into a

systematic body of fire analysis and to explore the

implications for codes and building design.

The Commission urges the National Bureau

of Standards to assess current progress in fire

research and define the areas in need of additional investigation. Further, the Bureau should

recommend a program for translating research

results into a systematic body of engineering

principles and, ultimately, into guidelines useful

to code writers and building designers. No less

important than the needs of designers of large

structures are the needs of designers of singlefamily houses. The National Bureau of Standards

should carry out these responsibilities in cooperation 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, and

with the major standards-writing organizations :

the National Fire Protection Association, the

American National Standards Institute, and the

American Society for Testing and Materials.

What Can Be Done Today

The present state of fire protection engineering

does not leave today’s building designer in a condition of helplessness. Much of what is known

about fire safety is simply being ignored. Indeed,

enough is known about fire safety to permit a

reliable application of a sophisticated systems approach to fire safety design. In the systems approach, in contrast to the “that’s the way it’s always been done” approach, objectives are set for

the building as a whole, and then the most costeffective technology is applied to meet those objectives, In such an approach, relationships

among components are important, and trade-offs

are sought. For example, if alarm and sprinkler

systems are installed to provide quick and effective

response to a fire, then fireproofing requirements

for walls and floors may be reduced. Another important aspect of the systems approach is that

backup measures are provided in case part of the

system fails. But redundancy for the sake of redundancy is avoided.

A systems approach was taken in the design of

San Francisco’s Transamerica Building in 1971.

In addition to a full sprinkler system, smoke detection devices, and a central alarm system, the

designers provided the building with emergency

refuge areas, two-way voice communications with

public areas, and an underground communications and command control center. Windows

pivot so that burning rooms can be vented. In the

event of a power failure, diesel pumps will maintain water pressure, and a diesel-run generator

will light exitways and power the elevators.

Should city fire mains be disrupted, there is an

emergency water supply. While these provisions

are costly, they are offset by savings they allowed :

lower fire resistance requirements for floors and

corridors, the elimination of fire dampers from

the air conditioning system, and a sprinkler system that permitted the use of smaller pipes.

The General Services Administration has also

adopted a systems approach, its first result being

the Federal Office Building in Seattle. The buildAMERICA BURNING 73
“NOTHING MYSTERIOUS”

Poor judgment often results in unnecessary fire lower level. In addition, exhibitions in McCorpotential in buildings. In the fire that consumed mick Place often added a heavy fuel load in the

McCormick Place, Chicago’s convention hall, in form of flammable displays, yet the building

1967, 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 National

temperatures could not reach a level to threaten Fire Protection Association concluded that “the

the roof structure, the designers left the steel

joists unprotected ; the roof collapsed during the

principles of good fire protection have been

known for many years and there was nothing

fire. Second, large aluminum space dividers mysterious about the destruction of McCormick

were installed directly over expansion joints in Place. The building was almost entirely unprothe floor, with the result that molten aluminum tected from a fire hazard so great that one

flowed 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 four

times as strong as the most severe situation will

call for it to withstand. Each story was made a

self-contained, fire-resistant compartment. When

a fire breaks out-and the GSA estimates that

about 100 ignitions will occur in the next 50

years-one of several alarm systems will notify

the Seattle Fire Department and the emergency

control center in the building. Immediately, a

prerecorded tape will broadcast instructions to

people on the fire floor. Air flow will be adjusted

to prevent smoke and other products of combustion from spreading. Elevators will be “captured”

and reserved for handling the emergency. As with

the Transamerica Building, the costs of these provisions are largely offset by savings in other aspects

of the building’s design.

The systems approach used by the architects of

the Transamerica Building and the GSA Applies

to one class of buildings. Similar approaches

could be devised for other classes of buildings, including one-family residences. The Commission

recommends that the National Bureau of Standards, in cooperation with the National Fire

Protection Asssociation and other appropriate

organizations, support research to develop guidelines for a systems approach to fire safety in all

types of buildings.

A different kind of study, though a natural

outgrowth of a fire safety systems analysis, is what

we have designated as a fire safety effectiveness

statement. This is an attempt to state, in quantified terms, the potential losses of life and property

(both inside and surrounding the structure)

should the structure catch fire. The better the

design and built-in fire protection of the building, the closer these quantities will approach zero.

The effectiveness statement should pay particular

attention to the consequences of fires starting in

areas of the structure where people or highly

flammable materials are concentrated. An additional set of calculations, designed to measure the

adequacy of back-up measures, should be based

on assumptions of system failures, such as power

blackouts or non-functioning smoke detectors.

While revealing whether adequate safeguards

have been provided, the effectiveness statement

has the added value of stating, through implication, the demands that would be put on local fire

services should a fire occur. Fire safety effectiveness statements are particularly important for

high-risk structures, such as shopping centers,

public buildings, fuel storage depots, tankers, and

chemical plants.

The Federal Government, through the General Services Administration, has set a valuable

example for the private sector through its pioneering work in fire safety systems analysis. A governmentwide example should also be set in the area

of fire safety effectiveness statements. Accordingly,

the Commission recommends that, in all construction involving Federal money, awarding of

those funds be contingent upon the approval of

a fire safety systems analysis and a fire safety

effectiveness statement. The funding agency

would certify that the analysis and effectiveness

statement have met its fire safety standards.

Product Design

It is not just the large structures of the built

environment that need improved design if fire

losses are to be reduced. Many products need

design improvement. Heating and cooking equipment, faulty wiring, and electrical appliances are

major causes of fires. Together with fires caused

by smoking and matches, these categories account

for nearly half the fires that occur (see Table

8-2).

Over the years, manufacturers and standardswriting organizations have developed ever-improving safety standards in the design of consumer

products. Yet some hazards have not been adequately covered. The National Commission on

Product Safety, in its 1970 report, identified color

television sets, floor furnaces, hot-water vaporizers, and unvented gas heaters as specific fire or

burn hazards. Under “unfinished business”-

possibly hazardous products the Commission did

not study-were listed electric blankets, dryers,

hotplates, extension cords, and space heaters.

Further studies of fire experience might bring

other hazards to light, particularly those that arise

from wear and tear. Such studies now lie within

the purview of the Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

The business of making consumer products safe

from fire and burn hazards is, in many cases,

recognizably a complicated matter. When kitchen

range controls were at the front of the stove, children could reach them and cause burner acciAMERICA BURNING 75
dents; now that they are at the back, they can be

hazardous to the clothing and skin of people

reaching for them over hot burners. No doubt

today’s appliances could be made completely safe,

but food wouldn’t get cooked, toast wouldn’t get

toasted, and clothes wouldn’t get ironed. But

advances are possible. Within the grasp of technology are burners that can only be activated by

the weight of specially designed, snugly fitting

pans. (Here, too, one must settle for imperfection;

there is residual heat in the burner once the pan

is removed.) Further, scientists are working on

the principle of generating heat within the substance to be heated, through induction of friction

between molecules.

Technology is also being developed to treat

cigarettes and matches to minimize their potential

for accidentally igniting destructive fires. Federal support may be needed to perfect these developments, and legislation may be needed to ban

untreated cigarettes and matches if manufacturers fail to adopt the improvements voluntarily.

As we pointed out in Chapter 9, the Consumer

Product Safety Commission is authorized by law

to “conduct research, studies, and investigations

For the Federal Office Building in Seattle,

the General Services Administration

has used a systems approach to fire safety.

76 HAZARDS THROUGH DESIGN
on the safety of consumer products and on improving the safety of such products.” Since burns

are a major form of injury from consumer products, it will be appropriate for that Commission

to devote a significant portion of its energies and

resources to fire and burn hazards. This Commission urges the Consumer Product Safety Commission to give high priority to matches,

cigarettes, heating appliances, and other consumer products that are significant sources of

burn injuries, particularly products for which

industry standards fail to give adequate protection. All of the Commission’s important weapons

might be brought to bear against these hazards:

the setting of standards of performance, design,

or materials for consumer products; the requirement of adequate warning labels and userinstructions; and the banning of products that are

unreasonable risks to consumers.

Educating the Designer

Few formal education programs anywhere in the

United States for architects and engineers have

course requirements in fire protection engineering.

(Only the University of Maryland and the Illinois Institute of Technology offer 4-year Bachelor

of Science degree programs in fire protection engineering.) While some professional societies have

committees concerned with fire safety, few designers take an interest in the committees’ work.

For lack of training, many designers are unable

to understand highly technical reports in fire

safety design.

This absence of training helps to explain the

unenthusiastic attention which architects and

engineers, when designing buildings, give to fire

safety provisions. If the situation were turned

around--that is, if architects and engineers were

schooled in the principles of fire safety--then undoubtedly they would participate enthusiastically

in the search for alternative solutions and better

codes consistent with the principles of fire safety.

The Commission recommends to schools giving degrees in architecture and engineering that

they include in their curricula at least one course

in fire safety. Further, we urge the American

Institute of Architects, professional engineering

societies, and State registration boards to implement this recommendation. Registration boards

could require a specific number of credit hours

of fire protection engineering to qualify for State

licensing for appropriate disciplines within architecture and engineering. After a suitable time to

allow local initiative on this recommendation,

Federal funds for engineering and architectural

schools might be contingent upon those schools

having adequate fire protection engineering requirements as part of the degree curriculum.

We recognize that, at present, if the emphasis

is to be on basic principles, there is not a great

deal available to be taught to architects and engineers in the realm of fire protection engineering. Deciding what can be taught-and what

should be taught-requires careful study. The

Commission urges the Society of Fire Protection

Engineers to draft model courses for architects

and engineers in the field of fire protection engineering. To this end, the Society should call

together educators in architecture and the principal engineering disciplines to discuss what information would be desirable to teach architects

and engineers.

Since it will take several years to develop fire

safety courses in architectural and engineering

schools, then several more years before those who

have had this training begin to practice, the impact of these curricular additions will not be felt

for some time to come. Practicing building designers must also be educated in fire safety. The

Commission recommends that the proposed National Fire Academy develop short courses to

educate practicing designers in the basics of fire

safety design.

There is presently enough information and a

wide range of technological choices (for example,

total communicationssystems, fire retardants, fireresistant coatings) to permit architects, engineers,

and other building designers to plan buildings

that are safeguarded from fire. What is needed,

in many cases, are incentives.

Positive incentives are likely to come about

through example. We are encouraged that the

Federal Office Building in Seattle is serving as a

beacon to the community. Now owners of Seattle

office buildings still on the drawing boards are

applying the same kind of systems approach to

provide the best building possible as a way of

insuring full rental. They feel they must be able

to show potential renters that their building is,

among other things, fire-safe.

AMERICA BURNING 77

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

11

CODES AND STANDARDS

For centuries, governments have exercised the

right to regulate how buildings are built for the

sake of the public’s protection. In the time of

Julius Caesar, Roman laws regulated the height

of buildings and the distances between them. During Queen Anne’s reign, the English found it

necessary to have a code to require non-combustible roofs. By the time of America’s settlement, the

legal concept of codes was well-established. In

1796, for example, the city of New Orleans, then

a Spanish province, passed an ordinance against

the use of wood roofs.

The public interest justifies these intrusions on

individual liberty, but what constitutes the public

interest has been a subject of debate and change.

Is continuity of business operations in the public

interest? States maintain that it is, thus justifying

strict code requirements in private industrial

plants.

Fire safety is only one aspect of the public interest-and, hence, only one of many matters

governed by codes-but in the wake of major

conflagrations that struck a number of American

cities at the turn of the century, it became a concern of major importance. In 1905, the National

Board of Fire Underwriters (now the American

Insurance Association) developed and published

the National Building Code, the first “model”

building code. It had no legal status of its own,

but was intended to provide guidance to State and

local jurisdictions for the enactment of legal codes.

Because its concern was principally central city

areas, the code emphasized converting downtown

areas from combustible construction, providing

adequate separation between buildings, and providing area limits and fire-resistive separations

within buildings.

Other model codes have been developed over

the years: that of the Pacific Building Officials

Conference (now the International Conference of

Building Officials) in 1927, that of the Southern

Building Code Congress in 1945, and that of the

Building Officials Conference of America (now

the Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc.) in 1950. All of these codes

are subject to periodic updating.

None of the model codes is sufficient unto itself.

All make references to extensive lists of standards

developed by other organizations. These standards usually specify the performance a material or

structural member must achieve under certain

conditions. Standards are written by such organizations as the American National Standards Institute, the American Society for Testing and

Materials, and the National Fire Protection

Association.

AMERICA BURNING 79
In addition to the model building codes, there

exists the Life Safety Code, published by the National Fire Protection Association. Its intent is to

strengthen provisions for protecting the occupants

of 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 construction regulations. The Federal Government

exerts leverage on the construction industry

through such documents as the Minimum Property Standards of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development, the safety standards of the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration,

and the minimum requirements of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for grant

programs or social security assistance.

Local Code Provisions

The situation of the model codes is complicated,

but not nearly as complicated as matters at the

local level of code adoption. In addition to the

building code, for which the model codes are intended to provide guidelines, State and local

jurisdictions may have more than half a dozen

other codes. A building code, of course, applies

principally to new construction and alterations,

though it is sometimes made retroactive and applied to existing buildings if past deficiencies are

discovered to be critical. Once a building is constructed, a fire prevention code may govern the

maintenance of the building and the introduction

of materials into the building for the sake of fire

safety,

Frequently there are other codes as well :

l The housing code, which is concerned with

livability and sets standards for sanitation and

health facilities and building maintenance;

l The electrical code, which sets requirements

for the materials and equipment used in the

electrical system;

l The plumbing code, which provides for the delivery of potable water and the safe disposal of

flushed wastes;

l The mechanical code, which applies to the

heating, ventilating, and air conditioning

systems;

l The elevator code, which governs the materials,

equipment, and installation of elevators and

their use.

In a city there may be as many kinds of inspectors as there are codes, of which only the fire

prevention inspectors are likely to be members of

the fire department.

The two most important codes from the

standpoint of fire safety arc the Building code and

the fire prevention code. Typically, two-thirds to

three-fourths of the provisions of a building code

apply to fire safety, as do all the provisions of a

fire prevention code.

How these codes are adopted varies from one

jurisdiction to another, but generally there are

public hearings preceding action by the city council or the State legislature. Material manufacturers, suppliers, contractors, labor unions, trade

associations, and civic groups are given the chance

to support the proposed code or recommend

changes. Considering that these groups often differ in their degree of expertise, that they make

conflicting claims, and that some do not have

fire safety uppermost in their minds, it is hardly

surprising that codes are products of compromise

amid competing aims and viewpoints. Nor is it

surprising that there are wide differences among

the 14,000 local building codes that exist in this

country. As the National Commission on Urban

Problems remarked in its 1968 report, “Building

code jurisdictions are thousands of little kingdoms, each having its own way; what goes in one

town won’t go in another-and for no good

reason.”

Evidence of the diversity in local codes was

discovered during that Commission’s survey of

the Nation’s 52 largest cities. Only 14 were using

one of the model codes, 20 had regulations based

on the model codes but with significant changes,

13 had adopted codes of their own, and one followed a State-recommended code. (Four cities

did not reply to the survey. ) Differences among

these local codes are not inconsequential; often

the process of political compromise leads to serious compromise in fire safety. Here and there in

this report we cite examples of tragic fires in

buildings that met all local building code

requirements.

Feeding the diversity among local codes are the

differences among the national model codes. The

model codes differ markedly in such matters as

permissible heights and areas, interior finish requirements, and specifications of safe travel dis80 CODES AND STANDARDS
tances for occupants. At the local level, then, a

spokesman for a particular point of view, whether

on the side of leniency or stringency, can appeal

to the authority of the one model building code

which among the four best matches his position.

If his subject is fire prevention codes, he has three

model codes to pick from.

Attempts to develop some uniformity among

the model codes have had limited success. The

Model Code Standardization Council, which includes representatives from the Nation’s building

standards-writing organizations, has been working

on uniform definitions of building construction

terms and a common format for the model codes.

The National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards is working toward more uniformity in building codes on a state-wide basis.

The Conference of American Building Officials is

seeking to fill gaps in existing standards and to

devise a system to promote and approve research

toward better standards,

The most promising start toward greater uniformity came in 1971, when the four model code

groups jointly published a “One- and TwoFamily Dwelling Code.” Having eliminated many

of the past differences among model codes, the

joint code has thus diminished the justification for

wide differences in codes between one jurisdiction

and another for single- and two-family residences. However, it has practically no fire safety

provisions.

More disturbing than the wide differences

among local codes is the fact that many jurisdictions have no codes whatsoever. When the National Commission on Urban Problems surveyed

local governments in the United States ( 18,000

units surveyed), it found that only 46 percent

had a building code. On the other hand, a more

recent survey of 2,000 cities with over 10,000

population indicates that 97 percent of these

cities have building codes.l It is the sparsely

settled areas, it can be surmised, which are chiefly

without building codes, Though there are no

statistics on how many jurisdictions have a fire

prevention code, it appears there are a significant

number of communities which do not have one

in force. The Commission recommends that all

local governmental units in the United States

1

 Milton Applefield, “Fire District Use in North Central

Region Cities,” Fire journal, January 1973, p. 28.

have in force an adequate building code and fire

prevention code or adopt whichever they lack.

Local Implementation of Codes

A law is effective only to the extent that it is

enforced, and so it is with a fire prevention or

building code.

Many serious building fires have been the result, not of code deficiencies, but of lax enforcement (sometimes because of corruption). A fireresistant floor, for example, is an insufficient barrier to smoke and fire if the architect allows gaps

in the floor or a workman punches a big hole in

the floor to allow a pipe to pass through. Vigilance is needed in the review of plans and in inspection during construction. Once construction

is finished, compromises in fire safety may be

hidden from view.

The training of inspectors is, in many places,

woefully inadequate. In one major city, the only

training for fire prevention inspectors consists of

sending them out for a few days with a senior inspector. Architects and engineers complain about

inflexibility in the codes, but one reason codes

tend toward rigidity and detailed specifications

is that local building officials and inspectors are

not equipped, because of their inadequate training, to evaluate alternative solutions and tradeoffs.

A fire-resistant ceiling is not effective

if an architect or a workman allows

wide holes for a pipe to pass through,

AMERICA BURNING 81
The effectiveness of codes is also compromised

by lack of coordination among inspection programs. The building department generally has

responsibility for enforcing building codes, the fire

department for enforcing fire prevention codes.

Because fire prevention bureaus are responsible

for fire safety throughout the life of a building,

they ought to be consulted by building departments during the design and construction phases.

In many local jurisdictions, however, building

departments act unilaterally, implementing the

building code during these crucial stages without

requesting the suggestions and advice of the fire

prevention bureau. Since the two codes influence

each other but require expertise specific to the

enforcement of each, coordination of efforts between the two departments is needed to provide

optimum fire protection. The Commission recommends that local governments provide the

competent personnel, training programs for inspectors, and coordination among the various

departments involved to enforce effectively the

local building and fire prevention codes. Representatives from the fire department should participate in reviewing the fire safety aspects of

plans for new building construction and alterations to old buildings.

Strengthening the Model Codes

Since the model codes exert a powerful influence

on local codes, the quality of the model codes is

a nationwide concern of considerable importance.

Historically, major changes in the model codes

have been made when a particular fire problem

achieves a certain magnitude (as is happening in

response to high-rise fires) or when a dramatic

fire or two focuses public attention on a problem

(as happened in the wake of the Coconut Grove

nightclub fire in Boston in 1942). The problem

of 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 synthetic

materials, has yet to receive adequate attention.

Slowness of change except during crisis is typical

of social institutions, but the consequences of that

characteristic are, in this instance, vital to public

safety.

One consequence of this mode of change is that

new requirements tend to be piled upon old instead of replacing them. The result can be needless redundancy and added expense. In some

model codes, for example, the addition of an automatic sprinkler system has not been accompanied

by trade-off provisions on other fire safety features,

such as height and area limitations, maximum

travel distances, or the degree of fire-resistive

construction.

The model codes have also been slow to respond

to the rapid changes in materials and construction technology. Here the fault does not lie ghiefly

with the code-writing organizations, since their

requirements in these areas usually make references to the standards set by other organizations.

As we pointed out in Chapter 9, changes in materials and construction technology have threatened

to outrun the standards-setting organizations and

testing laboratories striving to keep up with the

changes. As we have also pointed out, a firmer

grounding of standards in a scientific understanding of fire and its effects would streamline the

process of approving for use new materials and

technology. Progress in this direction would also

improve the codes. As it is now, both specification

requirements (such as 1/2-inch thickness for

gypsum sheathing) and performance standards

(such as 3 hours of fire-resistiveness in certain

bearing walls) arc the product of judgments

based on past experience or speculation, rather

than firm knowledge of fire behavior.’

The mechanisms for change to the model codes

are similar in the International Conference of

Building Officials, the Building Officials and

Code Administrators International, and the

Southern Building Code Congress. When a

2

 The use of more scientifically based information would

function both to increase the validity of code requirements

and to perpetuate a more uniform scientific base for all

codes.

change is proposed, a code change committee

holds hearings to consider opposing views, then

studies the matter further and issues its recommendation While the recommendation is voted

on by the organization’s membership, the committee’s recommendation is usually adopted.

Sitting on these committees are local building

officials, who often lack expertise in fire protection,

and who in some instances are understandably

reluctant to impose stringent requirements on industries which would directly affect local programs. The committee process is, moreover, a

slow one.

While the Commission has no suggestions for

improving the process whereby the model codes

are amended, we do have two specific recommendations for strengthening the model codes. We

are firm in our conviction that many lives could

be saved, and many injuries averted, if homes

were equipped with early-warning fire detectors

and alarms. These can be effective sentinels, especially at night when so many tragic fires occur.

No less important are early-warning detectors

coupled with automatic extinguishing systems in

buildings where many people congregate. Automatic sprinklers can pay for themselves in damages prevented, and the model codes should permit other savings by relaxing requirements for

other fire safety features when automatic sprinklers are installed. The Commission recommends

that, as the model code of the International Conference of Building Officials has already done,

all model codes specify at least a single-station

early-warning detector oriented to protect sleeping areas in every dwelling unit. Further, the

model codes should specify automatic fire extinguishing systems and early-yarning detectors

for high-rise buildings and for low-rise buildings

in which many people congregate. (Examples of

this last category include buildings of public assembly, such as theaters and exhibition halls,

restaurants, and enclosed shopping center malls.)

These recommendations apply as well to State

and local jurisdictions, whether or not they follow

one of the model building codes.

Of all the actions that can be taken to provide

fire safety for Americans in their built environment, these, we believe, are the most important.

AMERICA BURNING 83

FIRE AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

12

TRANSPORTATION

FIRE HAZARDS

Ever since man learned there was a better way

than a pair of feet to get from here to there, he has

developed a propensity for not getting there at

all. As he has honed his technology of transport,

he has also dropped from the sky like a lead

weight, sunk to the bottom of the sea, tumbled

from the sides of mountains, and met in disastrous

collision his fellow man traveling in the opposite

direction. In the process he has managed to destroy a considerable amount of the wealth that

he felt it necessary to carry from here to there. He

has also destroyed human lives.

Fire is not the inevitable consequence of a

transportation accident, but in an age of combustion fuels it is a frequent accompaniment. In 1971,

about 4,260 Americans, or about one-third of

all who died in fires, lost their lives in burning

planes, trains, ships, or motor vehicles. The majority of these were lost on the highways. The

National Fire Protection Association estimates

that, in that year, 521,800 transportation fires

caused property losses exceeding $332 million (see

Table 12-1 ) . That was 20,950 more fires, and $63

million more in losses, than the year before.

Several factors have contributed to the growth

of transportation fires. First, a citizenry growing

in affluence and mobility is using transportation

as never before. During the 1960’s, passenger

miles on U.S. airlines more than tripled, from 34

billion passenger miles in 1960 to 123 billion in

1970. Motor vehicle registrations went from 74

million in 1960 to 108 million in 1970, an increase

of 46 percent. A second factor, related to the first,

is the Nation’s rapidly increasing consumption of

goods, which requires more transport vehicles to

travel more frequently to meet the demands.

Third, hazardous materials which once traveled

solely on one mode of transportation are now

often exposed during transit to two or more (for

example, “piggyback” truck-rail arrangements,

and containerized shipping), increasing the

amount of handling and straining the capacities of

the containers. Fourth, new materials and new

forms of old materials (such as liquefied petroleum

AMERICA BURNING 85

495-792 O - 73 - 7
Table 12-1. Estimated 1971 Transportation Fire Losses*

Category

Life loss Property loss Fires

Number Percent Dollars- Percent Number Percent

of total million of total of total

Aerospace vehicles and aircraft 125 1.1 $192.0 7.0

Motor vehicles-farm/construction

Motor vehicles-pleasure/transportation 3,950 33.3 {

16.12 0.6

96.54 3.5

Ships, railroads, etc l85 1.5 27.60 1.0

Transportation (total) 4,260 35.9 $332.26 12.1

200 0.0

19,200 0.7

482,400 17.7

20,000 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 challenges regulatory measures and firefighting techniques to keep up.

Transport of Hazardous Materials

About 10,000 new chemical products are developed every year. Most never reach the commercial market; some do. And of those that do,

there are some that can present severe fire threats

as they are moved from place to place.

Real facts about the frequency and causes of

transport fires involving hazardous cargoes are

hard to come by. Within the Department of

Transportation, such agencies as the Federal

Aviation Administration, the Federal Railroad

Administration, and the Federal Highway Administration investigate accidents in their respective areas of concern. In a study of reporting

systems issued 4 years ago, the National Transportation Safety Board, another arm of the Department of Transportation, complained of the

“parochialism” of accident reports, and the fact

that they “have not contained information appropriate in character, depth, and detail to have

much value in preventing hazardous accidents in

other modes.”

Some of this is changing. The Office of Hazardous Materials, still another Department of

Transportation entity, has developed a system

for receiving, storing, and retrieving information

on hazardous materials accidents. The National

Transportation Safety Board has the duty to investigate causes of transportation accidents (excluding aircraft and marine accidents), yet in

1971 the Safety Board reviewed and issued only

‘22 reports of separate rail, highway, and pipeline

incidents. The Commission recommends that the

86 TRANSPORTATION FIRE HAZARDS

National Transportation Safety Board expand

its efforts in issuance of reports on transportation

accidents so that the information can be used to

improve transportation fire safety.

Despite the absence of complete statistics, some

generalizations are possible:

l There are more fires and explosions involving

tank vehicles during loading and unloading

than during actual transit.

l Routine transportation presents little hazard;

it is the interruption to smooth transit that

causes accidents.

l Regulations concerning the transportation of

hazardous materials lag behind current needs;

as one commentator has put it, “the regulatory

system is a part of the problem and not part of

the solution.” 1

In addition, the hazards that are covered can

be bewilderingly complex. Whether it is the State

police, another enforcement authority, or the fire

department that responds to an emergency, rudimentary knowledge is not sufficient. Complications are often present:

Physical properties. A liquefied gas, for example, may have widely different fire and explosion hazards from those that exist when the

fuel is shipped in a vaporized form.

Mixture of hazards. A material may well be

toxic, flammable, and reactive all at the same

time, yet marked for only one of the hazards.

Similar names, divergent hazards. One material with a name quite similar to another may

present quite different hazards.

1

 W. M. Haessler, “The Four Problems of Transportation of Goods,” Fire Journal, November 1971, p. 29.
Firefighters and the public alike would also

be better served if trucks, tank cars, and other

vessels for transporting hazardous materials carried clearly visible, readily understandable markings indicating the hazards therein. The two most

universally recognized means of identification of

hazardous materials are the National Fire Protection Association’s “704M System” and the

Department of Transportation’s “Hazard Information System” (HI). While the systems are not

dissimilar in the important respects, the Nation

would be better served if a single system, incorporating the best aspects of each, were adopted universally. The Commission recommends that the

Department of Transportation work with interested parties to develop a marking system, to be

adopted nationwide, for the purpose of identifying transportation hazards. In carrying out this

recommendation, the Department of Transportation should seek the cooperation and agreement

of the Department of Labor, which, under the

Occupational Safety and Health Act, is charged

with developing a labeling system for hazardous

materials for protection of employees. Since those

who must utilize the information gained from

these markings often must do so under poor lighting and hazardous conditions, representatives of

the fire services should also be consulted.

The complexity of hazards complicates firefighting. While spillage of a highly flammable

liquid into a stream may actually reduce hazards,

spillage of a toxic liquid into a stream creates a

new and major problem. Chemical foams effectively extinguish some tank fires, but are rendered

useless if certain solvents are present. For their

own safety, firefighters need to know the particular

hazards and proper tactics to use with each material, so that they can cope with what is likely

to happen next.

In a word, then, firefighters must be wellinformed about the hazards they are asked to deal

with. While the National Fire Protection Association, State firefighter schools, and some industry

representatives have attempted to educate fire departments on chemical hazards and proper tactics

to use on transportation fires, the results have

been very uneven. Training is likely to be superior

in urban areas. But trucks and trains cross vast

patches of rural America (at greater speed than

in urban areas), where training is likely to be

minimal. The Commission recommends that the

proposed National Fire Academy disseminate to

every fire jurisdiction appropriate educational

materials on the problems of transporting hazardous materials.

Even with adequate labeling and considerable

training, fire departments may face new or unusual hazards in transportation accidents for

which their knowledge of appropriate handling is,

at best, uncertain. In such instances, they should

be able to telephone for advice from a source

knowledgeable about the particular hazard.

The Chemical Transportation Emergency

Center (Chem-Tree) of the Manufacturing

Chemists Association is a long step forward to

meeting this need. By tapping its own resources

and those of others (such as DOT’s Office of

Hazardous Materials and the Environmental

Protection Agency), it is able to provide instant

information for handling emergencies involving

hazardous substances. The full potential of this

system will not be realized until an adequate

labeling system tells fire departments exactly

what is inside the containers involved in accidents. The Commission recommends the extension of the Chem-Tree system to provide ready

access by all fire departments and to include

hazard control tactics. The hazard control tactics

must come from joint efforts of the proposed National Fire Academy and representatives of the

Manufacturing Chemists Association.

The public, too, should become more aware of

the risks in accidents involving hazardous materials. An incident that happened near Waco,

Ga., in June of 1971, illustrates the importance

of this. As a result of an accident, a truck carrying

25,000 pounds of dynamite caught fire. Cars

stopped, and people got out to watch. The driver,

who escaped the fire, shouted to them to get

away-but to no avail. Six people died and 33

were injured when the explosion came.

The awareness can be attained in many ways.

Public fire safety educational materials should

contain pertinent information. Basic markings

(once one system is adopted) can easily be included in school fire safety education. Groups

such as the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administration, the American Driver and

Traffic Safety Education Association, the American Automobile Association, the North American

AMERICA BURNING 87
Professional Drivers Association, and the National Safety Council can, if given the proper information, include it in literature going to their

audiences.

Interstate and, in fact, most intrastate transport can be effectively controlled by the Department of Transportation, but the system sometimes breaks down at international borders.

Loading and unloading sometimes occurs in

streets and lots, because the Bureau of Customs

doesn’t have the proper storage facilities. To correct this situation, the Commission recommends

that the Department of the Treasury establish

adequate fire regulations, suitably enforced, for

the transportation, storage, and transfer of hazardous materials in international commerce.

These efforts must be coordinated with local fire

services.

Motor Vehicle Safety

The problem of transporting hazardous materials

is dramatic, and failure of the system often causes

large losses of life and property in a single incident.

However, fires in motor vehicles cause almost 35

percent of all fire deaths in the United States. In

fact, more than 450,000 fires occurred in cars and

trucks in the United States in 1971, causing

upward of 3,500 deaths and average losses of

$200 per fire. That same year, the Bureau of

Motor Carrier Safety received 729 reports of

truck accidents involving fire. These accidents

caused 132 deaths, 309 non-fatal injuries, and

$7,831,728 in property damage.

For the truck accidents, principal ignition

sources, in declining order of frequency, were

collision impact, defective wiring, hot tires, and

defective or hot bearings. Fires originating in cargo spaces were the most frequent, followed by

those originating in other vehicles or objects,

and those starting at tires or wheels.

Records kept by Oregon’s State Fire Marshal

indicate that the most frequent ignition sources in

automobile fires are backfires, electrical short circuits, hot mufflers and exhaust pipes, smoking materials, and incendiarism-in that order. The

materials first ignited are gasoline and other

flammable liquids, electrical insulation, and

upholstery.

A number of organizations, such as the National Safety Council, the American Trucking

88 TRANSPORTATION FIRE HAZARDS

Association, and the National Fire Protection Association, have attempted to educate drivers and

trucking companies to high standards of fire safety in the use and maintenance of motor vehicles.

Power to prescribe safety features and levels of

safety-related performance resides with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970.

In January 1971, that Administration published

a flammability standard for the interior materials

of passenger cars, trucks, and buses, to take effect

September 1, 1972.

The Traffic Safety Administration also asked

the Oklahoma University Research Institute to

evaluate the new standard. The Institute found

the standard lacking, in that it requires “too mild

a test to achieve a significant reduction in property

loss, much less injuries or fatalities, from vehicle

fires.” All that the standard accomplishes, the

Institute’s report said, is to “discourage use of

new materials for vehicle interiors which are more

flammable than those currently employed.”

Since gasoline spillage is a common cause of

vehicle fires, the location, construction, and security of fuel tanks are important design features

for fire safety. The most severe losses, in terms of

both life and property, occur from fires following

rear-end collisions. Next in importance are rollover accidents, followed by front-end collisions.

Fuel tanks for passenger cars must meet a Federal

standard, which specifies a fixed collision barrier

test and the allowable amount of fuel spillage

from the tank and its connections in the test.

(Somewhat more stringent requirements are imposed on large trucks and buses. ) Studies made for

the Department of Transportation have indicated

that the current procedure is not adequate to

evaluate the performance of a car’s total fuel

system in a fire situation. Studies by the Cornell

Aeronautical Laboratory have shown that, while

a mid-vehicle location for a fuel tank is probably

best, location alone is not the total answer to the

fire problem. Improvements can come only

through a consideration of the entire system : fuel

tank location, fuel line, electrical system and exhaust routing, and configuration of the surrounding structure. Consideration must also be given to

the evaporation emission control devices installed

on all cars in recent years.

The indications, then, are that motor vehicles,
especially cars, are not as fire-safe as modern

technology would allow. Improvements could be

made in design and materials, without significant

additional costs. The Commission recommends

that the Department of Transportation set

mandatory standards that will provide fire safety

in private automobiles. Both materials and structural design should be considered in these

standards.

Aircraft Fire Safety

On December 8, 1963, a Pan American Airways

jet exploded and burned near Elkton, Md., killing all 81 aboard. The frightening aspect for passengers contemplating such an occurrence is that

there is no escape: no running from the scene, as

on land, no climbing into a lifeboat, as at sea.

Yet fire is the greater killer when it happens

after a crash landing. There have been numerous

instances when the impact of the landing did not

kill passengers, but the ensuing fire did. One such

accident cost 43 lives when a commercial aircraft

crash-landed near Salt Lake City in November of

1965.

From the standpoint of dollar losses, the most

serious fires occur at airports and in hangars, usually during the course of maintenance operations.

A spectacular fire of this sort occurred in April of

1969 at the Mercer County Airport, N. J. Before

it was discovered, the flames were 25 feet high;

before it was contained, it had destroyed 49 aircraft (mostly of the single-engine type), 13 helicopters, a large hangar, the passenger terminal

facilities, and the offices of the airlines for a total

loss of over $3 million.

Considering the many materials available to

burn (propulsion fuels, hydraulic oils, lubricating oils, and ordinary combustibles and plastics),

the many sources of ignition (electrical, contamination of oxygen lines or valves, lightning and

electrostatic charges, hazardous cargoes, and

human carelessness), and the many ways an ignition source can come in contact with the combustibles, it is obvious that there are a large

number of potentials for disastrous fires in the

relatively confined space that constitutes the aircraft environment.

There are a number of areas in which research

and development could improve the fire safety of

aircraft :

Reduce chance of ignition. The fuel tanks, the

fuels used, and the interior materials are the

critical considerations in efforts to reduce the

likelihood of fire in aircraft accidents.

Increase the chance of survival. Once a fire

has started, the buildup of poisonous fumes and

heat is dependent upon many things, including

compartmentation, ventilation, and materials

used. Standards of construction must consider

not only how easily something can be ignited,

but also the effect on survival once it is ignited.

Detection and suppression of fires. When on

the rare occasion fire occurs during a flight, detection and suppression are normally swift and

effective. Aircraft fires during servicing and

maintenance are often not so efficiently dealt

with. Early automatic detection and suppression systems for parked aircraft, including betEvery year, more than 3,500 Americans die

in automobile fires. Better design

for 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 needed

at many airports.

Presently, research on various aspects of aircraft

fire safety is scattered among several Federal agencies, both civil and military, and aircraft manufacturers. Much research not specifically connected

with aircraft fire safety will nonetheless have a

bearing on future improvements in that field. Coordination of these research efforts is importantfirst, to ensure that research priorities reflect the

scale of needs for aircraft safety, and second, to

promote the transfer of technology among the

many segments of the aircraft industry and from

outside the industry.

Many fire chiefs express considerable doubt

that they can save lives in an aircraft crash if fire

erupts before suppression forces arrive. Their

fears are supported by Federal Aviation Administration records, which show that of the 57 aircarrier accidents during the decade 1959 through

1968 involving ground fire and fatalities, only 13

occurred at airports and thus within reach of airport 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, therefore, will have to be improved design of airplanes

and continuation of the careful operation of aircraft that has resulted in an admirably low accident rate for commercial aviation. Still, much

can be done to improve the firefighting capabilities at airports. The National Fire Protection

Association, the Federal Aviation Administration,

the Air Line Pilots Association, and the International Civil Aviation Organization are upgrading standards for airport firefighting. Many airports lag behind current standards. It would he

appropriate for airport authorities to review their

fire suppression and rescue needs, to produce

plans for coordinating the firefighting resources of

the airfield and surrounding areas, and to set up

capital improvement budgets to bring their firefighting capabilities up to NFPA, FAA, and

ICAO standards. The Commission recommends

that airport authorities review their firefighting

capabilities and, where necessary, formulate appropriate capital improvement budgets to meet
current recommended aircraft rescue and firefighting practices. We recognize that a firefighting capability adequate to handle a major disaster

is expensive, particularly in terms of manpower,

considering the rarity of fire accidents. There are

available, however, multiple turret fire vehicles

which require smaller crews than the several

trucks they replace, and progress is being made in

the development of automated apparatus for airport fire safety.

Marine Fire Safety

The position of the Coast Guard in maintaining a high level of marine fire safety is a difficult

one. Many factors work against them. Long experience in handling hazardous materials by

crews and longshoreman can lead to complacency

and carelessness. Pushed by schedules and financial incentives to unload quickly, shippers often

fail to use the expertise of chemical tankermen,

who are certified by the Coast Guard, or marine

chemists, who are certified by the National Fire

Protection Association. Since the incentives are

often contrary to good fire safety practice, the

Coast Guard needs the support of all who can

help. Attention should be called to the fact that

the Department of Labor has safety responsibilities for the shipbuilders, repairers, and longshoremen. The presence of increasing amounts of high

energy fuels and other hazardous substances

passing through ports demands special attention.

The Commission recommends that the Department of Transportation undertake a detailed

review of the Coast Guard’s responsibilities,

authority, and standards relating to marine

fire safety.

Railroad Transportation Fire Safety

With 200,000 miles of main track lines, the Nation’s rail network is vital to the economy. A fire

accident that incapacitates even a small portion

of the rail system has an effect far beyond the

actual scene of the accident.

An accident can be a local disaster if hazardous

materials are involved in the fire. Usually the fault

is not with the materials themselves. In January

of 1969, 15 exploding tank cars wreaked havoc

in Laurel, Miss., all because of a defective wheel

on one of the cars. Three weeks after that incident, a misaligned track derailed a train passing

through Crete, Nebr., and derailed cars struck a

tank car loaded with anhydrous ammonia standing on a siding. Escaping ammonia gas killed six

persons and injured 53. In both instances, the

cause of the accident was a mechanical failure;

the results were thermal and toxic nightmares.

Chronic problems with railroads are fires along

rights-of-way, usually started by brake shoe sparks

or hot carbon sparks from diesel stacks. In 1970,

there were reported 6,645 such fires in or near

forest lands; unreported thousands of fires burned

grass and croplands.

Responsibility for preventing fire accidents

must reside with the railroads themselves. Sound

maintenance practices are well known, but often

not followed. Rights-of-way should be well-maintained, kept free of flammable materials, and inspected frequently; malfunctioning equipment

should be quickly removed from service. The

Commission recommends that the railroads begin a concerted effort to reduce rail-caused fires

along the Nation’s rail system. Equipping nonturbo locomotives with exhaust spark arresters,

reducing the frequency of mechanical and rail

failures, adopting braking procedures and equipment designed to prevent hot brake shoe fragments from spewing, training crews in fire

suppression, and providing trains with appropriate fire suppression tools are measures for

consideration.

San Francisco’s Bay Area Rapid Transit,

known as BART, has signaled the beginning of

a new era of mass transit construction in the

United States. As, these systems are developed,

and as existing systems arc modernized, there will

be a need to protect the lives of those who must

travel through tunnels and over elevated tracks.

Tunnels, especially, can be traps: In a Boston

subway tunnel fire in February 1973, one person

died and more than 100 had to be treated in hospitals, mostly for smoke inhalation.

In a special study in 1970, the National Transportation Safety Board found that no safety conditions were being attached to Urban Mass

Transportation Administration grants for rapid

Tail transit systems. In support of the Board’s

findings, the Commission recommends that the

Urban Mass Transportation Administration require explicit fire safety plans as a condition for

all grants for rapid transit systems.

AMERICA BURNING 91

FIRE AND THE RURAL WILDLANDS ENVIRONMENT

13

RURAL FIRE PROTECTION

About a quarter of the American people, according to the 1970 census, live on the Nation’s

420 million acres of rural land.’ For many of

these Americans, fire protection is woefully inadequate. The same is true of many suburban

dwellers whose political institutions and community services have not kept pace with rapid

population growth.

Rural areas and rapidly developing suburbs

can be plagued with many problems: insufficient

water supplies, lack of adequate building codes

or too few inspectors to enforce them, insufficient

funds to pay firefighters or replace antiquated

equipment. Even where a strong volunteer fire

department exists, inadequate alarm facilities and

great distances to fires often result in response

times of 15 to 30 minutes or more.

Because many volunteer departments keep

scanty records or no records at all, the seriousness

of the fire problem outside of metropolitan areas

is difficult to gauge. According to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the fire

fatality rate for white Americans in non-metro1

 By including communities of up to 10,000, the congressional authors of the Rural Development Act of 1972

encompassed 37 percent of Americans within their definition of rural.

politan areas is half again as great as the rate for

whites in metropolitan counties (4 per 100,000

versus 2.7 per 100,000). Among non-whites, the

disparity is even greater: 15.3 per 100,000 in

non-metropolitan counties, 8.1 per 100,000 in

metropolitan counties. In New Hampshire, where

56 percent of the land is classified as urban, 29

out of the 32 deaths from fire in 1971 occurred

in rural areas.

Fire officials in New Hampshire estimate that

if all rural homes had early-warning detectors,

rural fire deaths would decline by as much as

75 percent. In Chapter 11 we recommended that

model building codes call for early-warning detectors and alarms in every dwelling unit; in

Chapter 16, in addition to urging all Americans

to install such devices, we recommend incentives

to encourage their installation. Here it is appropriate to note the special plight of many of

America’s rural and suburban dwellers. As in

urban areas, most rural fire deaths occur at night

during sleeping hours. A few minutes’ difference

inawakening to a fire can be a matter of life or

death. But what is especially critical for rural

dwellers is that if they awake belatedly and are

trapped, it may be many minutes before the fire

department arrives to rescue them. In the event

AMERICA BURNING 93
of a power or telephone failure, even notification

of the fire department may come too late. With

special urgency, the Commission recommends

that rural dwellers and others living at a distance

from fire departments install early-warning detectors and alarms to protect sleeping areas.

Publishers of newspapers and magazines for farmers and country dwellers could perform a valuable

public service by publicizing the importance of

these devices.

The best fire equipment, properly located, cannot be effectively utilized without well-trained

firefighters. While many rural volunteers receive

excellent training, there are many who do not.

The risks to these men can be reduced and their

effectiveness improved by proper training. The

Commission received many pleas for improved

training in our survey of the Nation’s fire departments. Unlike those in urban areas, one rural fire

department usually cannot afford to support a

fire school. The consolidation of fire departments

into county-wide or regional jurisdictions, as we

urged in Chapter 3, would permit better training

programs at less cost to the individual volunteers

or their sponsoring departments. Strengthening

of 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 National

Fire Academy and under Title IV of the Rural

Development Act.

The Rural Development Act

In its provisions for revitalizing the economy

of rural America, the Rural Development Act of

1972 recognizes that fire protection in rural areas

must grow apace. One section provides loans for

water supply systems for industrialized areas

being constructed in rural communities. Title IV

of the law, called Rural Community Fire Protection, provides for assistance in organizing, training, and equipping local fire protection forces.

The assistance is both technical and financial,

with the Federal Government assuming up to 50

percent of the costs. Full and continuing funding

of the fire protection provisions of the Rural

Development Act is, in the Commission’s judgment, essential.

The Rural Development Act also specifies that

all applications for proposed water systems and

other essential community fire protection facilities must be submitted to the agency that has

been designated by the State as the appropriate

clearinghouse. The Commission recommends

that U.S. Department of Agriculture assistance

to such projects be contingent upon an approved

master plan for fire protection for local fire

jurisdictions. (The master plan concept is discused in detail in Chapter 4. ) This recommendation is not meant to preclude Federal assistance,

including financial assistance, to help local jurisdictions develop master plans for fire protection.

Wherever possible, the master plan should be the

product of county-wide or regional coordination.

There are several reasons why master plans for

fire protection are vital for rural communities.

The first shopping center or first factory in a rural

area can represent a huge jump in the demands

that could be placed on the fire department’s suppression capabilities. It is especially important to

plan the location of future fire stations to minimize the distances fire engines must travel and to

provide for built-in protection. Since funds,

whether tax-based or volunteer, are generally

scarce in rural areas, coordinated planning is

needed to maximize the payoff in fire protection.

There are special problems to which master

plans for fire protection in rural areas should be

addressed. One is transportation fires, as discussed in Chapter 12. Provisions should be made

in the plan for training and for equipment adequate to handle these fires. The second special

concern should be buildings that have outlived

their usefulness. Rural areas abound with them:

schools not needed because of consolidation, village stores closed by nearby shopping centers, and

farm buildings now unused because a number of

small farms have combined into a large one. These

structures are enticing to mischievous arsonists

and to property owners for whom burning down

a building is convenient disposal or even a source

of profit. The master plan for fire protection

should specify the limits of fire department responsibility when such fires occur.

Only through planning for fire protection will

the impact of new structures on insurance and fire

service costs be controlled. Only in this way will

the responsibility of the public and that of the private sector (for example, company-supported fire

brigades in industrial plants, automatic extinguishing systems in larger buildings) be specified.

Only in this way will a fire in a shopping center

or other large complex no longer be the first time

anyone realizes the water mains are too small and

the fire companies too few to stop a controllable

fire from becoming a major disaster.

AMERICA BURNING 95

FIRE AND THE RURAL WILDLANDS ENVIRONMENT

14

FOREST AND GRASSLAND

FIRE PROTECTION

Despite the urbanization of the United States,

vast areas of the country still resemble the primeval wilderness. Of the two billion-plus acres that

make up the Nation, more than half consist of forests and grasslands. (Cities, highways, and waterways constitute only 500 million acres, farmlands

and small wooded lots roughly the same amount.)

In recent years, forest and grass fires, ignited

at the rate of about 300 a day, have been destroying an average of 4.7 million acres annually, In

national forests alone, resources lost by fire

amounted to more than $700 million in 1970.

Fire destroys the prized hardwoods of the northcm forests, the pines that supply pulp mills in the

South, the western species that go into plywood

and other lumber supplies. The losses, already

considerable, will grow critical as the Nation’s

consumption of industrial wood products rises.

Presently that consumption amounts to 10.7

billion cubic feet of timber annually. By the year

2000, that consumption will nearly double to

20.8 billion cubic feet.

Grassland fires destroy valuable range land,

robbing domestic animals and wildlife of their

food supply. Not only is vegetation removed, but

heat from range fires often dries out root systems

and lays the soil bare. In turn the barren soil,

eroded by wind and water, pollutes the air and

streams, Erosion delays natural regeneration,

sometimes stopping it altogether, leaving the soil

sterile.

As urban sprawl encroaches on wildland areas,

forest and grassland fires can pose a direct threat

to man. In southern California during a l-month

period of critical fire weather in 1970, 1,260 fires

burned more than 600,000 acres, killed 14 people,

destroyed more than 900 houses and other structures, and generated the potential for an aftermath of erosion, floods, and mudslides. That same

year, the Laguna Hills fire in San Diego County

burned 225,000 acres and caused an estimated

$100 million damage to dwellings, other buildings, field crops, utilities, bridges, and other

facilities.

As with other kinds of fires, man is the chief culprit. Nine out of ten forest and grassland fires

are caused by human action (Figure 14-l).

About a fourth of these man-caused fires are set

by arsonists; a slightly smaller fraction results from

people burning debris. Those fires not caused by

man are usually caused by lightning-l0,000 such

fires a year, resulting in about $100 million losses

annually. In the West, in fact, lightning is the

leading 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 natural

and frequent occurrence in North America over

the millenia prior to the arrival of the first oceancrossing settlers. But European civilization

brought with it a propensity for making this natural phenomenon a problem: Over the years,

debris from logging and land-clearing-treetops,

limbs, and chips-multiplied the accumulation

of “dead fuel” waiting to be ignited and to rage

with great intensity, The encroachment of homesites on wildlands and the use of forests for recreation have continued, and they have magnified

the threat of devastating fires.

Ironically, our Nation’s efforts in the twentieth

century to save our forests has contributed to the

problem also. For the longer a forest remains

protected from fire, the more dead fuel accumulates on the forest floor, thereby increasing the

hazard of a major blaze. The chaparral forests

of southern California, for example, deposit as

much as 1.3 tons of litter per acre every year.

Other species in the Sierra Nevada deposit twice

that amount of litter. In recent years, the practice

of “prescribed burning”-to make forests more

productive as well as to dispose of dead fuelhas won more and more adherents.

With forestlands in such abundance, the

prevailing view in nineteenth century America

was that forests could be harvested without replacing trees and that forest fires posed no serious

98 FOREST AND GRASSLAND FIRE PROTECTION

problem. That view now threatens to be replaced

by an equally erroneous notion: the romantic

idea that the best management of nature is no

management at all.

In a year’s time, an acre of forest can convert

solar energy into vegetable matter equivalent to

as much as 300 gallons of gasoline in potential

energy. Like a helium balloon being inflated, a

forest accumulates an ever-greater fuel load with

each passing year. To leave forest preservation to

the whims of nature, or to depend solely on

campers being careful in forests, simply courts

disaster. Man must intervene directly with forest

and grassland environments to preserve these important resources.

Accumulated residue, as we have mentioned,

can be burned off-through prescribed burning

or piling-and-burning. Both require skilled operators, careful control, and favorable environmental conditions. Another approach is to replace

vegetation that is highly flammable with lowlying plants of low flammability. In addition to

reducing fire hazards, such conversion projects

can improve soil stability, increase water yield,

improve the habitat for wildlife, and increase the

production of forage.

Still another method of intervention is to clear

strips of forestland of all vegetation to create

firebreaks. A modification of this is the fuel break :

strips of land in which only plants of low flammability are allowed to thrive.

A very different approach to discourage forest

and grassland fires lies in weather modificationspecifically, in inducing rain to counter the hazards pf a dry season or in suppressing lightning.

But the approach is controversial: first, because

effects are unpredictable; second, because efforts

that have good effects in one place may have

bad effects elsewhere. In Colorado, for example,

potato growers have taken barley growers to court,

claiming that the latter’s efforts to suppress hail

storms reduced precipitation so drastically that

potato crops were ruined.

The Bureau of Land Management, an arm

of the Department of Interior, has launched an

effort to abate lightning and to increase precipitation in Alaska. (Tests in the mid- 1960’s showed

that seeding clouds with silver iodide nuclei could

reduce cloud-to-ground lightning strikes by as

much as 60 percent.) These efforts will have to
be carefully monitored to determine whether they program, which has been credited with saving

have any undesirable effects. $17 billion in fire losses,

The Agencies that Protect Wildlands

Responsibility for fire protection on Federal land

lies, primarily, within the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. Other agencies, such as the

Department of Defense and the Tennessee Valley

Authority, are involved to a lesser extent. Each

of the 50 States also has an agency responsible

for fire protection of wildlands.

Further, the Forest Service has a Fire and Atmospheric Sciences Research and Development

Program. It supports basic and applied research

on a broad range of subjects, from fire prevention

to forest surveillance, and from hazard reduction

to suppression methods. In addition to research

in its three major laboratories, the program supports work by university scholars, industrial research groups, and fire control agencies.

The Forest Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, protects 203 million

acres in 154 national forests and 3.8 million acres

in 19 national grasslands. The Forest Service has

a Congressional mandate to seek a balance among

competing needs, such as timber, watershed management, protection of wildlife, and recreation.

To provide fire protection, the Forest Service does

not hesitate to alter the natural environment. For

example, in fiscal year 1970, it converted 34,941

acres of highly flammable brush to perennial

grasses. At the end of that year, the Forest Service

reported that the national forests contained 3,882

miles of fuel and firebreaks. Government experts, however, estimate that an additional 22,000

miles of fuel breaks are needed to prevent decimation of our forests.

A total of 545 million acres comes under the

jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior.

Its Bureau of Land Management provides fire

protection for 455 million acres, and its Bureau

of Indian Affairs protects 48 million acres.

Through contracts, these two Bureaus protect an

additional 110 million acres of State and private

lands. Finally, the National Park Service and the

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife provide

protection to 14 million and 30 million acres

respectively.

As Table 14-1 indicates, the protection record

of the 50 State fire agencies and the two major

Federal agencies-the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management-has been improving

significantly.

The Forest Service also has cooperative agreements with each of the 50 States to provide fire

protection for lands in all major watersheds575 million acres, all told. Federal support to

the States takes the form of financial assistance

(on a cost-sharing basis), training, inspection, implementation of research results, and the development and procurement of fire equipment.

Also in cooperation with the States, the Forest

Service conducts the Smokey Bear educational

The improvements over the past two decades

would be even more impressive were it not for a

number of very large fires in 1968 and 1969. Indeed, it is the occasional fire that “gets away”

which presents the greatest problem in wildland

management. An accumulation of highly flammable vegetation or a long dry season are open invitations to such fires. While large fires-over 300

acres-account for less than 1 percent of total

fires, they account for 60 percent of the acres

burned 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 causes

of man-caused

fires per National State and Bureau

million acres forest private of Land

protected Management

1950-59 139 261,264 8,074,797 1,235,996

1960-69 99 196,000 3,704,871 874,342

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

AMERICA BURNING 99
life and resources. Firefighters also have their

hands full when there are multiple ignitions-as,

for example, when lightning strikes in several

places or when sparks from damaged train wheels

set fires along a railroad right of way.

Nearly every wildland fire is a candidate for

status as a major fire if the conditions are right.

Against that possibility measures must be taken.

First in order of priority is fire prevention-reducing the number of starts. Second is preparedness; this includes intervening in the environment

so that, if a fire starts, it will not rage out of control ; it also includes early detection and response.

Third in order of priority is initial attack-that is,

stopping fires while they are small with adequately trained and equipped forces. The fourth

measure is suppression of major fires.

Fire Prevention

Smokey Bear is a great success story in the field

of wildland fire protection. Yet the average of

300 forest and grassland fires a day shows that

the message is not getting through to everyone.

While much information has been gathered concerning the effectiveness of Smokey Bear, the audience reached is not precisely known. This audience must be identified and a program devised to

extend the coverage to other groups who cause

forest and grassland fires. In support of such an

effort, the Forest Service has conducted studies

concerning the personalities and background of

those persons known to have caused wildland

fires. The results of these efforts must find a way

into all school courses that deal with the ecology,

and into other appropriate educational media.

Hence, the Commission recommends that the

proposed United States Fire Administration join

with the Forest Service, U.S.D.A., in exploring

means to make fire safety education for forest

and grassland protection more effective.

The effectiveness of fire prevention on nonFederal wildlands, in fact, depends heavily on

the adequacy and enforcement of State fire laws.

At present, several States-California, Florida,

Georgia, and Oregon among them-have excellent fire laws. Other States lag far behind. The

Commission recommends that the Council of

State Governments undertake to develop model

state laws relating to fire protection in forests

and 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 safety

devices for mechanical equipment operating in

wildlands, 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 emergency

measures as shutting down logging operations or

rescheduling the hunting season during times of

severe fire danger.

Once these laws are enacted, they will only be

as effective as the enforcement. Several have testified to this Commission that, in many highhazard areas, enforcement and court cooperation

are inadequate.’ The Commission urges interested citizens and conservation groups to examine fire laws and their enforcement in their

respective States and to press for strict

compliance.

If fire prevention efforts are to be effective,

they must be aimed at the real, rather than imagined, causes of fire. This, in turn, means that

accurate and detailed reports of forest and grassland fires must be gathered and analyzed. The

national data collection system, recommended in

Chapter 1, applies to wildland fires no less than

to 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 influence

growth rates. What is not so obvious is the fact

that decay is faster in warm-moist than in warmdry or cold-moist weather. Were it possible, on

the basis of a few indicators, to predict far in advance which wildlands are building up fuel to

hazardous levels, then it could be determined

which wildlands should get first priority for

modification-whether prescribed burning, fuel

breaks, or other appropriate means. Educated

guesswork for such predictions already exists;

what is needed is firmer grounding in science.

The Commission recommends that the Forest

Service, U.S.D.A., develop the methodology to

make possible nationwide forecasting of fuel

buildup as a guide to priorities in wildland

management.

One element important to the success of such

forecasting is long-range weather prediction.

That elusive goal is the subject of numerous Federal research projects. In the meantime, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

is devising a National Fire Weather Service to

AMERICA BURNING 101
aid fire control agencies. The forecast and advisory field services portion of the program is

lagging and another portion that should be

pushed is a research and development program

to apply improvements in weather technology to

fire weather forecasting. The Commission sup

ports the development of a National Fire

Weather Service in NOAA and urges its

acceleration.

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

towers are being supplemented by aircraft surveillance, including planes equipped with infrared sensors. The feasibility of using satellites for

infrared detection of fires merits exploration.

Over the years, the Forest Service has given increased emphasis to preparedness. In general,

larger investments in pre-suppression efforts

should be matched with a downward trend in the

cost of emergency suppression of large-scale fires.

Evidence of the value of preparedness comes from

a long-term look at the record of the Forest ServA 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 the

1951 average acreage per fire rate, 172,000 acres

would have been lost, instead of the 36,266 acres

actually burned over. At the 1956 average acreage per fire rate, 102,000 acres would have been

lost.

Initial Attack and Suppression

Under conditions of drought or high winds, forest

and grassland fires can move with unbelievable

speed. Winds have been known to carry fire along

treetops more than a mile from where the fire is

burning at ground level. Fires have leapt 300

yards across freeways. A vital ingredient in effective suppression, therefore, is early detection, followed by swift initial attack with sufficient firefighting forces.

In addition to well-trained firefighters, effective

initial attack depends on access by road or trail,

plus the equipment that can be deployedtractors, plows, and aircraft, for example. Air

tankers and helicopters, dropping water or chemical retardants, have proved especially valuable in

limiting the spread of fire. The efficiency and

effiectiveness of amphibious air tankers have been

increased in many areas through the use of waterscooping capabilities. Helicopters have also

proved valuable for rescue operations and transport of firefighters.

Recognizing the important role of these aircraft, the Forest Service and cooperating agencies

have begun a program to upgrade aircraft, provide more landing strips, and improve the effectiveness of retardants. In addition, some Air

Force planes are being equipped with modular

tank equipment to supplement strike forces for

severe emergencies.

The Ecology-Minded Public

More than for most kinds of fires, there are

grounds 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 2,319

Acres burned 94,011 77,679 36,266

Average acreage per fire 74 44 16

forest and grassland fires. The capabilities of Federal, State, and local control agencies are excellent. More heartening still, Americans have taken

a new interest in the preservation of the Nation’s

unspoiled wildlands.

They are visiting State and national parks as

never before, thus straining the parks’ capacities

and leaving them a little worse for wear. As the

Nation’s population grows, pressures will grow to

give over wildlands to human settlement. Yet it

is clear that future generations will need more

unspoiled recreation lands, not less.

Americans know their obligations to others.

They know that litter left behind today will be an

annoyance to park visitors tomorrow. They know

that a carelessly tossed cigarette or a campfire not

adequately doused can turn a rich natural environment into a black wasteland. Care with fire

is more than a moral imperative. It is a sound

principle of ecological management.

A carelessly tossed cigarette or a campfire

not adequately doused can turn a rich

natural environment into a black wasteland.

AMERICA BURNING 103

FIRE PREVENTION

15

FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

Among the many measures that can be taken

to reduce fire losses, perhaps none is more important than educating people about fire. Americans must be made aware of the magnitude of

fire’s toll and its threat to them personally. They

must know how to minimize the risk of fire in

their daily surroundings. They must know how

to cope with fire, quickly and effectively, once

it has started. Public education about fire has

been cited by many Commission witnesses and

others as the single activity with the greatest

potential for reducing losses.

In the Commission’s poll of those who live

daily with destructive fire-fire service personnel-98 percent of those who replied agreed that

there is a need for greater education of the public

in fire safety. Two-thirds agreed that most fires

occur because of public apathy toward good fire

prevention practices. (The larger the population

served, the stronger was the tendency to be in

agreement with this view. ) To what extent apathy

would be better labeled “ignorance” or merely

“low priority concern” can only be guessed,

In the Commission’s estimate, about 70 percent

of the fires that occur in buildings can be attributed to the careless acts of people,’ and together

these fires caused by human action account for

more than $800 million in property losses (Table

15-l). It is these fires that should be the special

target of educational efforts designed to prevent

them from happening.

The prevention of fires due to human carelessness is not all that fire safety education can hope

to accomplish. Many fires caused by faulty equip

ment rather than carelessness could be prevented

if people were training to recognize hazards. And

many injuries and deaths could be prevented if

people knew how to react to a fire, whatever its

cause.

As one writer has summed up the problem,

“A significant factor contributing to the cause

and spread of fire is human failure-failure to

recognize hazards and take adequate preventive

measures, failure to act intelligently at the outbreak of the fire, failure to take action which

would limit damage.”2

These failures cannot be

1

 The Commission’s estimate is at variance with other

estimates, but all such efforts involve approximations, if

only because a large number of building fires are reported

in 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)

Percent

attributed

to human

action

(2)

Number

of fires 1

(3) (4) (5)

Number Property loss 1

Property loss

of fires attributed to

attributed human action

to human (Cal. 1X4)

action

(Col. 1X2)

Heating and cooking equipment 75 157,700 118,275 $172,895,030 $129,671,250

Smoking and matches 100 118,400 118,400 98,344,OOO 98,344,OOO

Electrical 50 160,900 80,450 271,269,OOO 135,634,500

Rubbish, ignition source unknown 75 34,400 25,800 21,754,OOO 16,315,500

Flammable liquid fires 75 64,900 48,675 53,931,000 40,448,250

Open flames and sparks 75 74,100 55,575 100,156,OOO 75,117,000

Lightning 0 22,200 40,335,000

Children and matches 100 70,400 70,400 72,285,OOO 72,285,OOO

Exposure (to another fire) 0 23,200 42,148,OOO

Incendiary (suspicious) 100 72,100 72,100 232,947,000 232,947,000

Spontaneous ignition 33 15,700 5,233 25,606,OOO 8,535,OOO

Gas fires and explosions (not reported elsewhere) 50 8,200 4,100 21,074,OOO 10,537,000

Explosions (miscellaneous and unclassified) 50 4,400 2,200 5,212,000 2,606,OOO

Totals 826,600 601,2082

$1,158,046,000 $822,440,5003

1

 Loss data from “Fires and Fire Losses Classified,” Fire Journal, September, 1972 (pp. 65-69). Data in this table

exclude two categories where human action cannot be estimated (i.e.: “Unknown or Unidentified” and “Miscellaneous Known”). -

2 72.8 percent.

3

 71.2 percent.

legislated out of existence; they must be dealt America. And still, thousands of Americans die

with through education. needlessly every year.

Day in and day out, firefighters see the evidence

of human failure. They see pennies in fuse boxes

and 30-ampere fuses where 15-ampere fuses

ought to be. They see the tragic consequences of

trash or flammable liquids stored near furnaces,

overloaded electrical circuits, gas heaters improperly vented. They find the victims of fire who

have died in their sleep because they failed to take

the routine precaution of always sleeping with

bedroom doors closed. And when they can get

to them, they find the charred bodies of those who

took a fatal gamble with fire: who opened a

hot door, who dashed through smoke instead of

crawling along the floor, who might have survived the gauntlet if they had held a wet cloth

over nose and mouth. Organizations like the

National Fire Protection Association and the National Safety Council have based their fire safety

messages on these common failings (see box, page

115). Firefighters and others have brought these

messages into the homes and classrooms of

Public Education Reduces Deaths and Injuries

A cynic might remark that this widespread ignorance shows that Fire Prevention Week, school

programs in fire safety, and all the posters and

pamphlets on fire prevention are wasted efforts.

Yet we do not know how much worse the Nation’s

fire record would be if there were no educational

efforts. Moreover, we do know that public education programs can dramatically reduce fire losses.

Two studies supported by the Bureau of Community Environmental Management, an arm of

the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, provide evidence of this. Though small in

scope, the studies are among the few in which

results of fire prevention efforts have been

measured.

Between 1966 and 1969, an intensive fire

safety education program was directed at an area

of southeast Missouri where the fire death rate

was far higher than the national average. The

106 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION
first step was to study the pattern of fires and

burn injuries and their causes. Then a field staff

was trained to administer the program, Civic

groups, fire departments, local officials, and the

mass media cooperated with the program. The

public got fire safety messages every way they

turned-from audiovisual demonstrations, educational programs, and media broadcasts. The result: The fire death rate dropped 43 percent in

3 years-from 12.9 to 7.4 per 100,000 population. For each dollar invested in the program, 20

dollars were saved in anticipated property losses,

medical expenses, and earning losses. Two years

after the pilot program was terminated, the death

rate was still falling-five times faster than that

of the rest of the State.

A similar study had been carried out 8 years

earlier in Mississippi County, Arkansas. There,

studies showed that misuse of electrical wiring systems and petroleum products, plus use and storage

of flammable products near heating units, led

other causes of fire. The public education program

emphasized these problems. Following the first

year of the education program, there were only

half as many burn injuries requiring medical

treatment as the year before. This favorable trend

continued during ensuing years.

A number of incidents in recent years have

demonstrated that when people have fire safety

on their minds, fires decrease in number. In each

incident, people were fire-conscious because they

knew normal fire protection was not available to

them. It happened in a midwestern city when a

severe snowstorm immobilized all traffic, including fire trucks. It happened in several American

cities in the late 1960’s when fire departments

were tied up in riot-torn areas. It has happened

when fire departments have been battling landslides or coping with floods. In each case, the

number of fires dwindled to a fraction of the

normal.

A striking example of long-term success in fire

safety education is the Smokey Bear campaign.

That effort, supported by Federal and State

forest agencies, has been described as the country’s most successful program of environmental

protection.

For 30 years public service advertising has

urged Americans to prevent forest fires. During

these years man-caused forest fires have been reduced from about 200,000 annually to about

105,000 in 1971. This reduction was achieved

even though the land area for which statistics are

kept has doubled and the number of days of recreation use has increased about tenfold. A doubling of the acreage alone would be expected to

have resulted in 400,000 fires annually, but, as

indicated, only 105,000 occurred. This overall

reduction by 75 percent in the number of fires

which would otherwise be expected to occur (assuming that the increased exposure to people

leads in equal measure to chance of fire and the

chance of early detection) has helped save $17

billion in natural resources over the 30-year period. The cost of this program to Federal and

State agencies is about $488,000 per year, with

approximately $40 million in service donated by

the Nation’s radio and television stations, newspapers, magazines, and the Advertising Council,

Current Efforts to Reach the Public

Though we as a Nation have not made the commitment to fire safety education that we ought, a

number of efforts-by professional societies, the

insurance industry, fire departments and other

governmental agencies-are reaching some portion of the American people effectively.

Private organizations. Through posters and

pamphlets (17 million distributed last year), the

National Fire Protection Association brings a fire

safety message to millions of Americans every

year. The National Fire Protection Association is

instrumental in promoting the annual Fire Prevention Week campaign, the Sparky the Fire Dog

campaign in schools, and seasonal fire prevention

campaigns in the spring and at Christmas.

The American Insurance Association annually

distributes more than 26 million pamphlets to

schools, hospitals, and other organizations. Its

films reach an audience of more than two million

people each year. Through the special training it

provides to thousands of fire inspectors working

for insurance companies, the American Insurance

Association has an indirect but considerable effect

on public education.

Insurers in the industrial and commercial sectors, notably the Factory Mutual System and the

Factory Insurance Association, affect the safety

of 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 companies

reach the public with fire safety messages. Pilot

efforts have been made to teach fire safety in

deteriorated neighborhoods where the Fair Access

to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) plan is in

operation. (Under the FAIR plan, subject to the

Federal Insurance Administration, companies

agree to insure properties that would not qualify

under ordinary requirements.) Limited experience has shown that the efforts work only if support is won from local community leaders.

Lastly, the Fire Equipment Manufacturers

Association distributes about 200,000 fire extinguisher selection charts and several million

extinguisher operation manuals every year.

The Federal Government. With the very contrasting exception of the Forest Service’s Smokey

Bear program, the Federal Government is involved in only a limited way in fire safety educa108 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

tion-except as it affects Government installations. Each Federal agency has responsibility for

internal fire prevention. There is a Federal Fire

Council that pulls together Federal fire-loss statistics, serves as a clearinghouse and central library

of fire literature for the Federal agencies, and

sponsors a limited program of fire safety training

for Government personnel. Unfortunately, the activities of the Federal Fire Council have been

extremely limited in recent years. There is no

program in the Federal Government directed

toward the public at large to prevent fire losses.

Fire departments. Local fire departments

make significant contributions to public education--through inspections of dwellings and commercial establishments, through distribution of

reading material on fire safety, and through cooperation with schools.

In sum, a variety of ways are being tried to

heighten public consciousness of fire safety. The

very fact that the educational efforts come from a
multiplicity of sources in a variety of ways probably serves to heighten public awareness of fire

safety. Yet it is safe to assume, given the sheer

number of efforts, that some programs are far

less effective than others. What is needed is a

mechanism for evaluating these programs so that

weak efforts can be replaced by coordinated support of efforts of proven effectiveness.

Fire Safety Education in the Schools

Habits of fire safety are best instilled during the

years of childhood, especially since youngsters are

particularly prone to fire accidents, That fire

safety education in schools can be effective is

illustrated by a pilot study supported by the Bureau of Community Environmental Management

of HEW.

In 1971, a demonstration project was begun in

Memphis, Tenn., to determine the effectiveness

of teaching safety concepts to young school children. Forty-three elementary school teachers attended a 22-hour series of workshops on an injury

control curriculum. Emphasis was placed on

teaching burn prevention concepts. The teachers

returned to their classes and taught what they

had learned to 1,016 children, ranging from kindergarten to the third grade. In the study area,

burn injuries have decreased by 17 percent, while

in a control area with similar population, burn

injuries have increased by 100 percent. Because

of the success of the pilot project, safety education

is now being taught to all elementary school

children in the Memphis school system.

How do other schools measure up? In an

attempt to learn how much fire safety education

in schools is required throughout the Nation, we

wrote to the board of education in each of the

50 States, asking about programs in fire safety.

Forty-two States replied to our request. Of these,

seven reported that they have no State program

of fire education. Four of these-Arkansas, Kansas, Tennessee, and Alaska (which has the highest fire fatality and personal loss record in the

Nation) --expressed interest in starting a fire education program and asked the Commission’s help.

It seems safe to assume that the eight that did

not reply have no program.

Among the States requiring fire safety education, Iowa, Minnesota, and New York appear to

have the most complete curricula in the field.

New York law calls for 15 minutes of fire education a week in all grades, kindergarten through

ninth grade (over and above time spent on fire

drills), while Minnesota requires 60 minutes a

week of health and fire education. While some

States do have legal requirements and well developed curricula, conversations with State officials reveal that implementation of these programs is not well enforced or programs are

non-existent in many schools. One State teaches

the dangers of ammunition, homemade bombs,

and fireworks in the second grade but does not

get around to the subject of matches until the

third grade.

We need to point out that the absence of a

statewide fire education program does not necessarily mean that there is no fire education in the

State. Local school boards, fire departments, or

other groups may be filling the void-at least in

part. Some communities have exemplary programs. In Santa Ana, Calif., a city of 165,000

people, an imaginative program in the classrooms

is supplemented by demonstrations by the fire

department, a parade at the end of Fire Prevention Week, a poster contest, and a carnival for

schoolchildren in May. Civic groups are as deeply

involved in the program as the schools and the

fire department.

But the Santa Anas are the exception, not the

rule. The Nation’s widespread ignorance about

fire safety and the failure of many States to provide even minimal education in the subject underscore the need for Federal intervention. The

Commission recommends that the Department

of Health, Education, and Welfare include in

accreditation standards fire safety education in

the schools throughout the school year. Only

schools presenting an effective fire safety education program should be eligible for any Federal

financial assistance.

Because fire safety has been ignored in the education of teachers, there are few educators with

the knowledge or qualifications to teach it. The

Commission recommends that the proposed

United States Fire Administration sponsor fire

safety education courses for educators to provide

a teaching cadre for fire safety education.

The Commission recommends to the States the

inclusion of fire safety education in programs educating 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 for

teaching certification.

Our concern over the lack of public education,

and particularly education of the young, is by no

means new. In fact, it was expressed a quarter of

a century ago by the 1947 President’s Conference

on Fire Prevention, many of whose recommendations, unfortunately, remain to be implemented.

That the Federal Government shows more

interest in protecting its trees than its citizens

from fire merely reflects the long-standing indifference of Americans to the problem of fire losses.

But the imbalance deserves to be rectified. While

the National Fire Protection Association and

others are doing significant work in fire safety education, the Nation is not realizing anywhere near

the benefit of the potential loss reduction possible

through fire safety education. The Commision

believes that a significant increase in effort is

necessary and that this will only come about by

the involvement of the Federal Government.

The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration develop a program, with adequate funding, to assist, augment,

and evaluate existing public and private fire

safety education efforts. The program should be

directed, first of all, toward encouraging local

governments and the private sector to do more,

reinforcing efforts with incentives when necessary.

Secondly, it should seek effective ways to reach

critical target areas where special educational

efforts are warranted, such as young children and

the vast numbers of the poor whose education is

limited. Thirdly, it should develop model programs and guide local governments in their adaptation to local circumstances.

Further, the Commission recommends that the

proposed U.S. Fire Administration, in conjunction with the Advertising Council and the National Fire Protection Association, sponsor an

all-media campaign of public service advertising

designed to promote public awareness of fire

safety. In developing this campaign, the U.S.

Fire Administration should provide for test marketing, evaluation, and periodic revision of the

messages. Major emphasis should be placed on

fire prevention in the home. This campaign

should include national and regional efforts by

all communications media directed toward specific fire-prone groups, such as the young and the

elderly. The campaign should cover seasonal fire

hazards, and should be geared through language,

background, and program timing to the important recipients. Mass media education should not

only create an awareness of fire hazards and fire

safety, but should provide specific instruction on

what to do and what not to do and motivate

changes in attitudes and behavior.

Evaluation is an especially important phase of

the recommended programs. Effectiveness of fire

safety messages is best not left to guesswork. The

best techniques of persuasion (admittedly, a field

undeveloped as a science) must go into the message; the most exacting standards of testing must

go into the evaluation of results. The latter is true

whether results are being measured in terms of

attitude changes, elimination of hazards, or decline in fire accidents. In all such testing, results

should be compared with a control group, consisting of a similar population, that has not received the fire safety message. It would be appropriate for the U.S. Fire Administration to assist

non-profit organizations, such as the National Fire

Protection Association, in evaluating their efforts

in fire safety education, It would also be appropriate for the US. Fire Administration to underwrite basic studies of techniques for motivating

target audiences.

Special Opportunities

While it is premature to say what techniques

work best, two pilot projects sponsored by the

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

suggest approaches that could be adopted on a

much wider scale. The first of these was tried in

Norfolk, Va., in 1969. Specially trained paraprofessionals, called Injury Control Technicians, went

from house to house in the target area in the company of housing-hygiene inspectors. The technicians acted as home environment counselors to

help residents of the area identify injury hazards

and, where possible, eliminate them. (All kinds

of hazards were pertinent, but fire hazards were

a major consideration.) The advice of the technicians was welcomed by the residents and, as a

result, an average of five important hazards per

household were eliminated.

In the second project, now in its fifth year, 500

specially trained paraprofessionals, called Health

Educator Aides, are working in 36 cities. ReAMERICA BURNING 111
cruited mostly from the poor neighborhoods they

serve, they have proven effective in reaching the

poor and altering their behavior for their own

good. While most of their work has been in rodent control, HEW’s Bureau of Community Environmental Management is confident H.E.A.‘s

could be used to improve fire safety in poor neighborhoods. If H.E.A.‘s spent 10 percent of their

time on fire safety, as the Bureau recommends, it

would cost $14.6 million to bring fire safety education to the Nation’s 15 million disadvantaged

families. The Bureau estimates that if the program reduced fire losses among this population by

only 2.6 percent, the expenditure would be

economically justified, but that a reduction of 10

percent is easily attainable.

In addition to health aides, there are a number of other Americans in occupations where, if

they had special training in fire safety, they could

favorably influence the safety of others:

l Attendants in nursing homes, hospitals, and institutions for the handicapped should have

special training to handle their difficult responsibilities during fire emergencies. Evacuation is

usually a slow process and, with certain patients, sometimes impossible ; and emergencies

can be compounded by irrational behavior of

patients.

l Employees of restaurants, hotels, and places of

public assembly should be trained to lead patrons to exits, to extinguish small fires, and to

render first aid.

l Physicians are valued counselors on a host of

subjects ranging from nutrition to behavioral

problems. Their advice on fire safety could be

especially important to families with young

children or elderly relatives in their care.

l Millions of preschool children spend part of

their time under the care of teachers and workers in nursery schools, day care centers, and

Head Start programs, In these contacts lie valuable opportunities for lessons in fire safety appropriate to the preschool age group.

l There are approximately 20,000 resident managers of major (150-330 units) federally assisted housing facilities for low-income families.

Currently these managers are being offered

training opportunities in such subjects as administration, management of physical facilities,

and human and family relations by the feder112 FIRE SAFETY EDUCATION

ally funded National Center for Housing Management. If these resident managers had special

training in fire safety, they could affect the wellbeing of 10 million Americans who live in these

federally assisted housing projects.

These special situations merit special attention.

The Commission recommends that the proposed

U.S. Fire Administration develop packets of

educational materials appropriate to each occupational category that has special needs or op

portunities in promoting fire safety. In many instances, these packets could be distributed by

professional organizations in the private sector on

a shared-cost basis.

While Health Educator Aides and other paraprofessionals can supplement the residential inspection programs of fire departments by calling

citizens’ attention to hazards and sound practices

of fire safety, they in no way diminish the need

for thorough inspection programs by fire departments. Trained firefighters can bring to residential

inspections an expertise exceeding that of paraprofessionals for whom fire safety is a part-time

concern.

A National Program for Fire Safety Education

The Commission believes that an overall reduction of at least 2 percent per year in life loss,

property loss, and injuries is a realistic and conservative goal for a national fire safety education

program. We believe that the three-part program

outlined in Table 15-2 will reach that goal in the

early years of implementation, based on current

fire loss statistics. We emphasize that parts of the

program must be designed to provide feedback

information on program effectiveness-information which is essential to achieving optimum

benefit, yet is usually not collected.

Multimedia public service education. This

nationwide program should be directed to the

public at large through all forms possible, with

an approach similar to the Smokey Bear campaign. The $1.5 million annual cost is a realistic

estimate, based on previous public service

campaigns.

Intensive local education. This part of the

program should be aimed at that 5 percent of

the Nation’s population in areas suffering the

highest loss of life from fire: Alaska, several

Southern States, and the poor sections of large
Table 1-52. Estimated Annual Savings and Costs of a Fire Safety Education Program

Program

Estimated savings Estimated

Federal

Lives Injuries Property cost

Nationwide multimedia public service education program 120 3,000 $27,000,000

Intensive local education programs (directed to 5 percent

$1,500,000

of Nation’s population with highest life loss risks) 76 1,900 4,300,000

Nationwide elementary schoolchild education

2,100,000

66 1,600 8,700,OOO 6,000,OOO

Total 262 6,500 $40,000,000 $9,600,000

cities. Various pilot projects have achieved significant reductions of fire incidence and burn injuries and deaths. The Arkansas pilot project

mentioned earlier achieved a 50 percent reduction in burn injuries, while the one in Missouri

resulted in a 14 percent reduction per year in fire

deaths. The volunteer fire department of East

Aurora, N.Y., reported a 28 percent reduction in

the number of fires and a 52 percent reduction in

dollar losses, achieved through a public education

campaign. In Rochester, N.Y., spot announcements on television during station breaks contributed to a 15 percent annual reduction in

smoking-related fires and an 18 percent annual

reduction in fires caused by children and matches,

Cost-effectiveness as high as 20 to l-that is,

$20 saved in losses prevented for every dollar

spent on education-has been reported. Where

volunteers are used or the media donate space

or time, cost-benefit ratios can be even higher.

Past experience shows that the 760 lives lost

in the high risk 5 percent of our population could

be reduced by 10 percent year year. An investment of $2.1 million each year to reach this

segment of the population could be expected to

reduce fire injuries by 1,900 and property losses

by $4.3 million annually.

Education of children in schools. Continuous

education of children of elementary school age

can, we believe, result in an annual 10 percent

reduction in deaths and injuries within that group

and an equal reduction in child-caused fires, especially those involving children and matches. We

have estimated that for an annual cost of $6 million, specialized training can be provided for a

corps of fire safety educators, including both
teachers and firefighters. While the payoffs from

these expenditures will not be especially high in

t.he beginning, the attitudes and habits instilled

should last a lifetime, thus having a cumulatively

greater effect in future years,

The projected program should result in an annual 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 of

four dollars return for every dollar invested, not

to mention the incalculable savings in lives and

injuries.

We recognize that not everyone will respond to

or even be reached by public education, but we

firmly believe that it can contribute significantly

to 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 National Fire Protection Association, the National

Safety Council, the American Insurance Association, and others emphasize the major gaps

in everyday knowledge and practice:

Before the Fire Starts

l Remove trash and stored items of outlived

usefulness, particularly from the vicinity of

furnaces and heaters and from hallways and

exit areas.

l Exercise care in the use of electricity. Do not

overload electrical outlets with many appliances, use only appropriate fuses, and do not

hang electrical cords over nails or run under

carpets, Have cords replaced when they begin

to fray or crack, and have electrical work

done by competent electricians.

l Do not store gasoline or flammable cleaners

in glass containers, which can break, and

avoid storing them inside the home. Do not

keep more flammable liquids on hand than

you really need.

l To avoid the danger of spontaneous ignition,

dispose of rags wet with oil, polishes, or other

flammable liquids in outdoor garbage cans.

l Inspect your home and workplace often for

these and other hazards.

l Plan for escape from every area of the home,

discuss escape routes with your family, and

actually rehearse escape. Look for exits upon

entering restaurants, theaters, and other public buildings. You might have to find your

way out in thick smoke or darkness.

l Sleep with bedroom doors closed. In the

event of a fire, you will gain precious minutes

to escape.

l Learn how to extinguish common fires in

early stages the best way. Roll a person whose

clothing is on fire; use a proper portable

extinguisher or even a handful of baking soda

to extinguish a fire on your stove.

l Clothing afire is a prelude to tragedy. Buy

garments, such as children’s sleepwear, that

meet Federal flammability standards as they

become available, Do not wear (or permit

children to wear) loose, frilly garments if

there is any chance at all of accidental contact

with a stove burner or other source of fire.

l Exercise extreme care with smoking materials and matches, major causes of destructive fire. Do not leave these where children

can reach them.

l Invest in fire extinguishers, escape ladders,

and-most important-early warning (smoke

or products-of-combustion) fire detector and

alarm devices.

After a Fire Starts

l If you see, smell, or hear any hint of fire,

evacuate the family immediately, but don’t

compound tragedy by attempting a rescue

through a gauntlet of flames or thick smoke.

Call the fire department as soon as possible.

Don’t attempt to extinguish a fire unless it is

confined to a small area and your extinguishing equipment is equal to the task.

l If your clothing ignites, roll over and over on

the ground or the floor. Running will just

fan the flames. Teach the proper procedure

to your children.

l Before opening your door when you suspect

fire in another part of the building-as in a

hotel, for example-feel the inside of the

door with the palm of your hand. If it’s hot,

don’t open it. Summon aid, if possible, and go

to a window and await rescue. If smoke is

pouring ‘into the room under the door, stuff

bedding or clothing into the crack.

l In smoke, keep low. Gases, smoke, and air

heated by fire rise, and the safest area is at the

floor. Cover mouth and nose with a damp

cloth, if possible. Don’t assume that clear air

in a fire situation is safe. It could contain carbon monoxide, which, before it kills you,

affects judgment, hampering escape.

AMERICA BURNING 115

FIRE PREVENTION

16

FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

Of the 8,000 Americans who die in building fires

every year, nine out of ten die at home. Firefighters find their bodies beyond the wall of fire or

smoke that blocks escape, sometimes only a few

feet from a window or door. But often, too, they

are found where they slept: Smoke and toxic

gases never gave them a chance.

The nearly 700,000 fires that occur in American homes annually produce losses exceeding

$874 million. That figure tells only part of the

story. In addition to structural damage, the losses

include personal possessions-often acquired after

years of work and saving, often objects of sentimental attachment whose value cannot be described in dollar figures.

The losses will grow. Presently there are about

68 million occupied dwelling units in the United

States, and new units are being added at the rate

of 2 million a year. Considering this growth and

taking into account the demolition of old units,

we can project annual property losses from residence fires approaching $1 billion by 1980-unless major steps are taken to combat the problem.

Residence fires are not a simple problem but a

welter of interacting factors. Combustible interior

finishes and furnishings, flammable clothing, and

poor interior design from the standpoint of fire

safety contribute to the heavy toll. The ignorance,

confusion, or panic in people’s response to fire

helps to account for the fatalities. So does the lack

of even elementary precautions, such as never

smoking in bed and never leaving children home

alone. So, too, does the lack of positive steps, such

as installing early-warning fire detectors or extinguishing devices and rehearsing with the family

various escape plans.

Fire Awareness in the Home

In Chapter 15 we recommended a concerted national effort in fire safety education, including a

multiple-media public service advertising campaign. Obviously a major emphasis in this broadbased effort should be fire safety in the home.

Americans must be educated to sound practices

in the home to prevent fires from starting, and

they must also be educated to react properly when

a fire is discovered to save their lives and those of

their families.

Thousands of Americans die needlessly because they react counterproductively when they

discover a fire. Many waste precious minutes trying to put out a fire before awakening the family

or calling the fire department. Others open hot

doors, attempt a dash through thick smoke, or,

AMERICA BURNING 117

495-792 0 - 73 - 9
in confusion (or under the influence of a toxic

gas), fail to think of the most obvious measures

for escape.

The National Fire Protection Association and

the Fire Marshals Association of North America

have devised a program called Operation

EDITH (Exit Drills In The Home). In a

community that adopts Operation EDITH, wellpublicized efforts are made to encourage families

to devise-and rehearse-plans for getting the

family out of the house in the event of a fire. The

publicity often includes demonstration of such

steps as installing escape ladders and, when a fire

happens, covering the nose and mouth with a wet

cloth and crawling along the floor to avoid smoke.

The Commission supports the Operation

EDITH plan and recommends its acceptance

and implementation both individually and

community-wide.

Dwelling Inspections by Fire Departments

Though regrettably few fire departments conduct

adequate evaluations of their programs, some

have reported as much as 15 to 30 percent reduction in dwelling fires or life loss as a result of

undertaking a program of home inspections. In

1972, Baltimore reported a 47 percent decrease in

dwelling fires and a 38 percent reduction in lives

lost from the year before, and attributed a significant portion of these reductions to the city’s

dwelling inspection program, Not surprisingly, inspection programs appear to be most effective in

neighborhoods where losses are ordinarily high.

Only a portion of the Nation’s 27,500 fire departments conduct residential inspections. In the

Commission’s survey of fire departments, only 20

percent of the 10,000 respondents reported inspecting more than 10 percent of the residences in

their community each year.

In addition to locating fire hazards in the home,

residential inspections can serve to heighten citizens’ awareness of fire’s threat and to teach them

life-saving precautions and emergency procedures.

Inspections can promote respect for the fire department and underscore its interest in saving

lives and minimizing losses. In addition, inspections can serve to attract new members to the fire

service.

Most important, residential inspections-used

as educational opportunities as well as for identi118 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

fying hazards-could save thousands of lives a

year. The Commission recommends that annual

home inspections be undertaken by every fire

department in the Nation. Further, Federal financial assistance to fire jurisdictions should be

contingent upon their implementation of effective home fire inspection programs. This recommendation is not meant to preclude Federal planning and implementation assistance to help fire

jurisdictions undertake a program of residential

inspections.

Small and volunteer fire departments that have

manning problems, particularly during daytime

hours, should be encouraged to use women volunteers as residential fire prevention inspectors.

Cities that have health educator aides or other

community workers in low-income neighborhoods

(as described in Chapter 15 ) could utilize these

workers to supplement the fire department’s residential inspection program,

It is important that inspectors be carefully

selected and trained, They must be able, not only

to spot hazards, but to deal graciously and effectively with the public. In this regard, it would be

appropriate for the proposed National Fire

Academy to develop model curricula for the training of residential inspectors, Care must also be

taken to assure citizens that the inspections are

advisory only and limited to matters of fire safety.

(Inspectors will not be welcomed into homes

when they are suspected of searching for unlicensed dogs or housing code violations.)

To be successful, inspection programs must be

evaluated. It is important for the Nation to know

what kinds of inspection programs work and what

kinds don’t. At the very least, comparisons should

be made between the 12 months’ preceding a new

inspection program and the first 12 months following, as well as between the last year of a program and the year after it is dropped.

Home Fire Detection

Most Americans who die in home fires die during

the nighttime hours. Usually it is smoke, toxic

gases, or lack of oxygen-not fire itself--that kills

them.

In countless instances these lives would be

saved if the victims were awakened to the presence of a fire in its early stages. There are on the

market approved devices designed to detect smoke
or other products of combustion-not heat alone,

which can be detected only in a fire’s advanced

stage-and sound an alarm. In a Canadian

study,’ the investigators concluded that 41 percent of recent fire victims in Ontario could have

been saved if their dwellings had been equipped

with early-warning detectors. Extrapolated to the

United States, this would be a saving of 2,600

lives every year.

1

 J. H. McGuire and B. E. Ruscoe, “The Value of a

Fire Detector in the Home,” Fire Study No. 9 of the Division of Building Research, National Research Council,

Ottawa, December 1962.

In addition to locating fire hazards in

the home, residential inspections can serve to

heighten citizens’ awareness of fire’s threat.

The National Fire Protection Association, the

Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the International Association of Fire

Chiefs, among others, support the use of earlywarning detectors in homes. Those who testified

to this Commission on fire safety in the home were

unanimous in favoring widespread use of earlywarning detectors. At a minimum, most advocates feel, there should be an early-warning detector on the ceiling near each sleeping area in the

house. Some believe a system of heat detectors is

an adequate substitute, but only if there are many

more of them located throughout the house.

There is a consensus that only devices approved

by nationally recognized testing laboratories,

such as Underwriters’ Laboratories or Factory

Mutual Research Corporation, should be used.

The Commission urges Americans to protect

themselves and their families by installing approved early-warning fire detectors and alarms

in their homes.

Fire departments should encourage the installation of approved early-warning fire detectors in

the course of their residential inspections. In the

course of subsequent inspections, they should

then check to see that the devices are in working

order.

Representatives of numerous insurance companies have expressed to the Commission the desire to increase their efforts to reduce life and

property losses and injuries by fire. Encouraging

Americans to provide fire protection in their

homes would be a major contribution, and the

Commission recommends that the insurance industry develop incentives for policyholders to install approved early-warning fire detectors in

their residences.

There could also be tax incentives. The Commission urges Congress to consider amending the

Internal Revenue Code to permit reasonable deductions from income tax for the cost of installing approved detection and alarm systems

in homes. Such a provision would not only offer a

financial incentive but would serve to draw public attention to the importance of fire safety in the

home.

Public awareness of the value of early-warning

fire detectors would be enhanced if, as we recommended in Chapter 11, all of the Nation’s model

codes would specify at least a single-station earlyAMERICA BURNING 119
warning detector outside sleeping areas in every

dwelling unit.

Here and there fire detection systems have become legal requirements for residences. Since

1958, Quincy, Mass., has required fire detection

and alarm devices in all new single-family dwellings. The Village of Bayside, Wis., has a similar

ordinance, and also requires that occupants perform maintenance checks on the detection systems

and report on a standard form to the chief of public safety annually or face a $200 fine. In Ohio,

the State fire code now requires a single-station

fire detector in all new one-, two-, and threefamily dwellings. At the Federal level, the Department of Housing and Urban Development

requires early-warning fire detectors in multiplefamily dwellings and care facilities, such as hospitals and nursing homes, insured or assisted by

the Department. HUD recently extended the requirement to insured or assisted one- and twofamily dwellings.

The 18,000 mobile homes that HUD provided

to Pennsylvania’s victims of Hurricane Agnes in

1972 were equipped with early-warning detectors

and are serving as a testing ground for the devices. The National Bureau of Standards is collecting data on the experience with these detectors to

evaluate their performance (including any tendency of causes other than fire to activate the

alarm) and to aid in the development of installation and maintenance requirements.

Certainly the technology of early-warning detectors can be improved, and with a substantial

market assured, the costs of these devices can be

brought within the reach of low-income families.

Manufacturers are working toward improvements in both directions, and their efforts are

likely to accelerate when the devices “catch on.”

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and

the National Bureau of Standards are supporting

work to improve the detectors. All of these efforts

deserve coordination, and the Commission recommends that the proposed United States Fire

Administration monitor the progress of research

and development on early-warning detection systems in both industry and Government and provide additional support for research and development where it is needed. Long-term studies

might investigate the possibility of coupling early120 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HOME

warning detection with household commodities,

such as electrical wiring or telephones, or with

such commonly used objects as lamps or light

bulbs.

In addition to on-premises detectors and

alarms, another avenue of exploration is the coupling of fire detection with cable television. The

Federal Communications Commission requires

commercial suppliers of cable TV to provide the

capability to transmit a signal “upstream” from

the subscriber as well as “downstream” from the

transmitter. Several cities, including Pensacola

(Florida), Atlanta, and a suburb of Chicago, are

experimenting with means of transmitting fire

alarms automatically by cable to summon aid.

Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems

Where early-warning detectors and automatic

extinguishing systems are used in combination,

the protection to lives and property is enhanced

greatly over that afforded by detectors alone.

Automatic sprinklers are expensive; while they

are feasible for high-rise and other large buildings, they are too costly for installation in the

average home. Research and development are

needed toward automatic extinguishing systems

that will be cheap, aesthetically acceptable, and

adaptable to existing homes as well as new construction. The Commission recommends that the

Proposed U.S. Fire Administration support the

development of the necessary technology for improved automatic extinguishing systems that

would find ready acceptance by Americans in all

kinds of dwelling units.

Automatic extinguishing systems in residences

would not only save lives and reduce direct losses

from fire, but would also reduce other expenses

to the Nation, such as the costs of treating burn

and smoke injuries, insurance costs (both premiums and payouts), and the costs of maintaining fire departments. The developers of Disney

World in Florida, who have installed sprinkler

systems in residential buildings such as hotels and

apartments (and smoke detectors in single-family

dwellings), report that there have been savings in

insurance rates and, just as important, savings in

the costs of maintaining fire departments.

Protection of Mobile Homes

Mobile homes possess some special fire danger
EARLY-WARNING (SMOKE) AND

HEAT DETECTORS

“Three types of fire detectors are most commonly used in this country. These are known

by the generic terms as heat detectors, smoke

detectors, and flame detectors. Only heat and

smoke detectors appear to have application to

the household fire detection system. Heat detectors may be of the type that sense temperature

of the environment, rate of rise of the environment temperature, or combinations of these.

Smoke detectors of two different types are available. Optical detectors are designed to sense the

scattering of a light beam by smoke particles; combustion products detectors

are designed to detect the presence of particulate products of combustion by electrical

means., Each detector type has advantages and disadvantages associated with any

particular application. .

“In the late 1950’s, self-contained non-electrical fire alarm units were being sold door-todoor. A unit of this type consisted of a heat

detector.... a horn or bell to sound the

alarm, and a source of stored energy.... 

Because these units respond only to a temperature rise, they are intended for use in areas

where a fire producing a great deal of heat is

likely to occur, such as near a furnace, but they

have also been employed throughout other

rooms in a home. Hard sell techniques were

employed in marketing these units. . . .

“In order to be of value in providing life

safety, a fire detection system must make provision for detecting a small smoldering fire soon

enough that alarm can be given and the building evacuated before untenable smoke conditions are reached. In addition, but of less relative importance, the fire detection system ought

to be capable of early detection of rapidly developing hot fires.

“Smoke detectors of the photoelectric and

ionization types provide means for detecting

smoke from either type of fire; and the most

critical factor in determining the speed of response is the location of the detector. Heat

detectors, on the other hand, provide early

warning of hot fires in their immediate area

only. . .

“The most favorable locations for smoke

detectors which protect the bedroom area,

either alone or in conjunction with detectors

located throughout the house, depend of course

on the building configuration. In general, the

smoke detectors should be located so that smoke

from any fire which originates outside of the

bedroom area must pass over the smoke detector before entering the bedrooms.”

----From testimony to the Commission (Oct. 4,

1972) of William J. Christian, consulting

engineer, Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc.

AMERICA BURNING 121
characteristics. Among these are their small size,

close proximity of heaters and kitchens to sleeping

areas, the concentration of combustible materials,

lack of adequate escape doors in many cases, and

a higher combustibility of interior finishes than in

most site-built homes. Mobile homes are the fastest-burning of all homes.

More than seven million Americans live in

mobile homes, and mobile homes currently account for 95 percent of homes sold for under

$15,000. Mobile homes presently are being manufactured at a rate well exceeding 500,000 per year.

While the incidence of fire in mobile homes is

about the same or less than in conventional homes,

data indicate, results are often more serious when

a fire occurs. The office of the State Fire Marshal

of Oregon has compiled some of the most complete records available on fire losses in mobile

homes. They have reported, from data covering

the period 1965 through 1971:

l The ratio of fatalities per fire in mobile homes is

2.74 times greater than for standard dwellings;

l The loss-to-value ratio per fire in mobile homes

is 3.84 times greater than standard dwellings;

l Average mobile home fire losses are greater

than average losses in standard dwellings by a

ratio of 1.62 to 1 ($1,477 per fire average to

$909 average for standard dwellings).

A number of individuals and organizations

have pursued improvements in mobile home

safety. Congressman Lou Frey, Jr., of Florida, introduced in 1972 the first national mobile home

safety act. Federal action to protect owners of

mobile homes is justified, since the Federal Government buys mobile homes for disaster victims

and other uses and, through the Federal Housing

Administration, provides mortgage insurance for

a limited but growing number of mobile homes.

In addition, the National Fire Protection Association has devised a standard, NFPA 501B,

which has been approved by the American National Standards Institute for the design and construction of mobile homes to provide fire safety.

This standard has been criticized as not stringent

enough; for example, there are no interior finish

requirements for molding, doors, trim, cabinets,

and splash panels, all of which can contribute to

the rapid spread of fire. Nor are early-warning

fire detectors required. The Commission recommends that the National Fire Protection Asso122 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 tragedy

is 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 Standards

Institute jointly review the Standard for Mobile

Homes and seek to strengthen it, particularly in

such areas as interior finish materials and fire

detection.

The NFPA/ANSI standard is advisory only,

and many State and local jurisdictions have failed

to enact a code for mobile homes equivalent to

that standard. The Commission recommends

that all political jurisdictions require compliance with NFPA/ANSI standard for mobile

homes together with additional requirements for

early-warning fire detectors and improved fire

resistance of materials. These requirements will

be effective only if they are enforced adequatelythrough inspection both at the point of manufacture and the final site of each mobile home.

Because of zoning requirements, mobile home

parks are frequently located outside of cities and,

hence, far from fire departments and adequate

water supplies. This means that the parks themselves must provide safeguards against destructive

fire, as the National Fire Protection Association

has recognized in its Standard on Mobile Home

Parks (NFPA 501A). The Commission recommends that State and local jurisdictions adopt

the NFPA Standard on Mobile Home Parks as

a minimum mode of protection for the residents

of these parks.

Citizens’ Responsibilities

There are millions of Americans who invest

heavily in chain locks and burglar alarms, who

keep guns in their homes and under store counters

to supplement the protection they get from police

departments. Very few of these Americans have

paused to consider the wisdom of providing their

own fire protection.

Consistent with the prevailing American attitude toward fire protection in the home, the

burden of protecting lives and property in residential fires is borne overwhelmingly by the public, in the form of fire departments. The inadequacy of this reliance is conveyed by a single

word: time. It takes time to discover a fire, time

to notify the fire department, time for the fire

department to reach the scene, and time for firefighters to bring the fire under control. Every

passing second weighs the odds more heavily in

favor of the fire and against the victims.
The attitude of the Japanese, who for centuries built their homes of very flammable materials, contrasts sharply. There, a destructive fire

disgraces the person who allows it to happen;

once upon a time, it was sufficient cause for crucifixion. A Japanese proverb translates: “There is

no one who fails to get excited when the neighbor’s house is on fire.” That is, distant troubles

do not interest people; it is only when a problem

comes close to home that they are willing to do

something.

Before Americans will take the steps to protect

themselves and their families, the threat of fire

must be brought “close to home.” Thus, a need

underlying many others is to educate Americans

to recognize the dangerous enemy they have in

destructive fire.

If fire consciousness could be instilled in Americans, then one could envision the day when every

American home will have its own automatic fire

department: an alarm that rescues the family and

automatically activates the extinguishers that put

out the fire. Then thousands of lives would be

saved every year, millions of dollars of the Nation’s resources would be saved from ruin, hospitals could be emptied of beds for burn and smoke

injury patients, fire departments could be pared

to a fraction of their present size, and fire insurance might he as cheap as dog licenses.

Other measures for averting tragedy include

using and storing flammable liquids

away from potential sources of ignition.

AMERICA BURNING 125

FIRE PREVENTION

17

FIRE SAFETY FOR THE

YOUNG, OLD, AND INFIRM

There are millions of Americans against whom

fire holds heavy odds. These are people with

limited capacities-the very young, the old, the

physically and mentally handicapped. Lacking

the ability to cope adequately with fire accidents,

these Americans deserve protective watchfulness

from their families-that is, when they are with

their families. When they congregate with peers of

similar disabilities, a fire accident can threaten

many lives. The situation is ripe for major tragedies in nursery schools, day care centers, homes

for the physically or mentally retarded, and homes

for the elderly.

In many such institutions, a combination of

built-in fire protection and attentive staff has kept

fire accidents under control, But there are poignant exceptions. In February of 1972, six children died in an apartment in Chicago that had

been licensed by the State of Illinois as a day care

center. At the time of the fire, the operators of

the day care center had won two delays of a

court case involving code violations found by the

Chicago building department. Many such programs for preschool children are not subject to

strict building code requirements because they

are located in private homes, churches, or other

buildings not designed for the purpose of child

care.

The National Fire Protection Association has

amended its Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) to

govern construction, exit facilities, and fire detection systems in facilities for groups of preschool children in day care centers, group day

care homes, and family day care homes. Included are provisions for early-warning fire detection devices where children sleep. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has

urged the States to adopt these provisions as

licensing requirements for these facilities. The

Commission strongly endorses these new provisions of the Life Safety Code for child day

care centers and recommends that they be

adopted and enforced immediately by all the

States as a minimum requirement for licensing

of such facilities.

Among fire’s victims, one large group stands

out as a special and growing concern: the occupants of nursing homes and homes for the

elderly. Annually, 3,500 to 4,000 fires break out

in these facilities. During the 20 years from 1951

to 1970, 496 residents of facilities for the aged

died in multiple-death fires (those killing three

AMERICA BURNING 127
or more). No one keeps a national record of

single-fatality fires in nursing homes, but by conservative estimate the toll is 500 persons a year.

According to Government and industry estimates, about one million older Americans live in

23,000 nursing homes and other care facilities

across the Nation. Most of these facilities are licensed by their respective States and hence may

be regulated, to some degree, concerning fire

safety. About 14,000 of these are subject to Federal certification (under Medicare and Medicaid

programs) and must comply with the 1967

edition of the Life Safety Code of the National

Fire Protection Association.

Perhaps another million elderly Americans live

in “housing for the elderly” insured or assisted

by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and thus subject to some fire safety

requirements, though not as stringent as they

could be.

Untold hundreds of thousands of older Americans live in nursing homes that are not Stateregulated (usually because they dispense no nursing services) and in unregulated boarding houses,

hotels, and other room-and-board facilities that

cater mostly to the elderly.

Thus, fire protection for the elderly ranges from

excellent to totally inadequate and, on balance,

is far less than senior citizens deserve. It is a

blemish on the American conscience that those

who contributed to our prosperity are allowed

to live their retiring years where even minimal

fire safeguards are absent. The problem of fire

safety in special housing for the elderly deserves

attention, with growing urgency each passing day.

The elderly population is expanding, as is the portion of Americans living out their years in nursing

homes and housing for the elderly.’ A stronger

Federal role in attacking the problem is justified,

since many homes for the elderly receive assistance from HUD or old age assistance payments.

Fire-resistive building construction, we should

add, is not a panacea. In November of 1972, 10

people died of smoke inhalation in an Atlanta

fire 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 percent

by 1985, while the total population will grow by only

18 percent. In the 6 years from 1963 to 1969, while

the elderly population grew by 21 percent, the number

in nursing homes increased by two-thirds.

meet the appropriate provisions of Atlanta’s

building code, the NFPA Life Safety Code, and

the standards of the Department of Housing and

Urban Development for housing for the elderly.

Moreover, many safeguards meant to avert

multiple-death fires by limiting the spread of fire

and smoke do not prevent the accidents that

cause single deaths. Safeguard which only prevent multiple deaths cannot be considered adequate to the needs of the elderly.

It is not difficult to see why the elderly are

especially prone to tragic fire accidents. Many

lack the physical coordination to handle matches,

cigarettes, or hot appliances safely. Others,

mentally impaired or despondent, set fires deliberately. When a fire occurs, physical or mental

impairment can hamper the chances of escape.

As firefighters have discovered over and over,

many elderly patients are reluctant to leave the

room that houses their few worldly possessions.

Compounding the problem of fires in nursing

homes is the fact that many homes are sparsely

staffed, especially during the nighttime hours.

Better Protection is Needed

The National Fire Protection Association recently

revised the Life Safety Code and, in so doing,

gave added attention to the problem of singledeath fires. Stricter flammability requirements

have been imposed on gowns, bedding, cubicle

curtains, and draperies. Early-warning detectors

arc recommended requirements for all new nursing homes, hospitals, and ocher care facilities. In

recognition that building alterations and extinguishing systems are expensive, the fire protection

standard is flexible, permitting reduction in compartmentation requirements if automatic sprinklers are installed or deleting the sprinkler

requirements where compartmentation standards

are met in fire-resistive and protected non-combustible buildings.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development, too, has revised its standards for institutional and residential occupancies for the elderly,

to require more extensive, yet not complete, coverage by automatic sprinklers and early-warning

detectors.

State requirements vary widely. Since 1967,

Massachusetts, which has some of the most

stringent standards, has required that all new and

128 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE YOUNG, OLD, AND INFIRM
existing facilities for the aged (except those strictly

providing housing for the elderly) be equipped

with automatic sprinklers if they have three or

more residents. On the other hand, there are seven

States with no sprinkler requirements of any kind.

Reliable estimates place the cost of automatic

sprinkler systems between $0.65 and $1.25 per

square foot, depending on the difficulty of installation. While this is roughly similar to the

cost of carpeting, we recognize that the cost

could be burdensome to many owners of facilities for the aged, particularly if the owners must

also invest in early-warning detectors. Such facilities are an expanding need in our society,

hence any increase in financial burdens must be

carefully weighed against its possible effect of

discouraging private enterprise to provide these

facilities, 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 recommends that early-warning detectors and

total automatic sprinkler protection or other

suitable automatic extinguishing systems be

required in all facilities for the care and housing of the elderly.

The recommendation applies to residences for

the elderly as well as to care facilities. Some financial incentives may be necessary. Federally guaranteed low-interest loans, tax incentives such as

accelerated depreciation and exclusion of fire extinguishing systems from tax assessments, reduced

fire insurance premiums, and concessions in structural fire protection requirements would offer

desirable inducements to builders and owners.

In putting forth this recommendation, the

Commission recognizes that it exceeds standards

of the NFPA Life Safety Code at a time when

Federal agencies and many States still lag behind

current provisions of the code. We believe the

Federal agencies and States should be making

every effort to keep up with changes in the

NFPA standards. The Commission recommends

to the Federal agencies and the States that they

establish mechanisms for annual review and

rapid upgrading of their fire safety requirements

for facilities for the aged and infirm, to a level

no less stringent than the current NFPA Life

Safety Code.

It is appropriate to pause and note here that

the recommendations we have thus far put forth

in this chapter, and the ones that are to follow,

could apply equally well to other kinds of facilities for the infirm and handicapped in our society.

We have focused on nursing homes and housing

for the elderly because these have been a major

source of tragic fires. But other kinds of institutions, such as homes for the physically or mentally

handicapped, have conditions very similar to

those of facilities for the aged. Thus, it would

be appropriate for Federal and State authorities

also to review periodically the extent of coverage

provided by their fire safety regulations-that is,

to include various kinds of institutions for the

handicapped as well as facilities for the elderly.

The limited capabilities of the physically

handicapped and the elderly to escape from fire

in institutions and public buildings need special

attention. A deaf person cannot hear a fire alarm

bell. A blind person cannot see an exit sign.

The crippled person in a wheelchair needs ready

access to a safe refuge from fire that does not

require the USC of stairs or elevators. Audible and

visual fire alarms, wide doorways, and ramps are

some of the needs. The Commission recommends

that the special needs of the physically handicapped and elderly in institutions, special housing, and public buildings be incorporated into

all fire safetey standards and codes.

No standards are useful, of course, if they are

not enforced. The Commission recommends that

the States provide for periodic inspection of

facilities for the aged and infirm, either by the

State’s fire marshal’s office or by local fire departments, and also require approval of plans

for new facilities and inspection by a designated authority during and after construction.

Lowering the amount of combustibles in nursing homes-including interior finishes, furnishings, and fabrics-is a matter of utmost priority.

Here the experience of the Veterans AdministraThough set afire simultaneously, the

flame-resistant pajamas burn far

more slowly than standard cotton pajamas.

130 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE YOUNG, OLD), AND INFIRM
tion is instructive. The VA is furnishing every

one of the 80,000 patients in its hospitals with

pajamas made of a flame-resistant cloth. Eventually all bath robes will be of this material, and

the VA is evaluating the material for possible use

in bedding. While the fire-resistant material used

is four times as expensive as cotton, it lasts 10 to 15

times longer. The garments have been readily accepted by patients; while the 1 percent of patients

who are risks to themselves (most because of their

smoking habits) are required to wear fire-resistant

clothing, few of the others reject the garments.

Among the elderly in nursing homes, acceptance of uniform garments is less likely. Many

have developed sentimental attachment to their

own clothing and to the individuality it gives

them. It would still be appropriate, however, to

require fire-resistant clothing on patients prone

to fire accidents. Other fabrics in nursing

homes, such as bedding and draperies, should

meet high standards of non-flammability, as

should furnishings and interior finishes. The

Commission recommends that the National

Bureau of Standards develop standards for the

flammability of fabric materials commonly

used in nursing homes with a view to providing

the highest level of fire resistance compatible

with the state-of-the-art and reasonable costs.

Other measures can be taken to reduce the life

losses from fires in nursing homes. Specially protected, supervised areas can be set aside for

smokers. Smoking can be prohibited in bedrooms

unless an attendant is present.

State and local governments can regulate the

location of nursing homes-prohibiting them at

great distances from fire departments. They can

require that alarm systems be tied directly and

automatically to the local fire departments. The

Commission recommends that political subdivisions regulate the location of nursing homes and

housing for the elderly and require that fire

alarm systems be tied directly and automatically

to the local fire department.

The Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare, and other governmental bodies which

inspect Medicare and Medicaid institutions, can

aid local fire departments by transmitting their

findings relating to fire and life safety to the

departments.

Finally, loss of life can be reduced through the

education of staff, residents, and families of residents on fire safety. It is particularly important to

train staff how to handle a fire emergency, and in

Chapter 15 we recommended that the proposed

United States Fire Administration develop training aids for just this purpose.

An incident that happened in Virginia several

years ago underscores the importance of education for all who enter nursing home doors. After

returning home from visiting an elderly relative,

a man called the nursing home to confess that he

had given forbidden matches to the relative. The

call was too late. The patient had already burned

to 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

18

RESEARCH FOR

TOMORROW’S FIRE PROBLEM

In both the public and private sectors, the Nation

spends about $105 million annually on research

and development related to fire (see Appendix

VII). It would be difficult to define an adequate level of investment against which this

figure could be compared. But evidence marshaled earlier in this report of laggard progress

in the technology of firefighting, the treatment of

burn and smoke victims, and fire protection of

the built environment suggests that the Nation is

seriously under-investing in fire-related research.

Much of the research is devoted to narrowand short-term goals. Industrial research and

development, for example, is largely devoted to

ensuring that materials and products meet existing codes rather than more ambitious standards

of fire safety. Of the $27 million spent on fire research and development by the Federal Government, about $18 million is directed to the specific

missions of the sponsoring agencies-for example,

in the Atomic Energy Commission, to the prevention and control of fires in nuclear reactor

facilities.

Comparatively little has been done in the

realm of basic research and other research in

which, if a technological improvement is a possibility, it is a long-term payoff. As far back as 1959,

the Committee on Fire Research of the National

Research Council noted a dearth of basic research

directed toward a fundamental understanding of

the phenomena of ignition, fire growth, and fire

spread. The Committee recommended a “national program emphasizing those areas not adequately covered by current efforts of military and

civil agencies.” During the 1960’s, most of the

basic research on fire pertained to forest fires,

since the forest environment was easier to deal

with and properly preceded attention to the more

complex environment of urban fires. By 1969,

the Committee on Fire Research was able to report “small but significant” progress in basic fire

research.

In the mid-1960’s, research interest in the built

environment was spurred by new Federal laws

dealing with fire safety, in particular with certain

fabrics and the materials in aircraft interiors. An

expanding role for the Federal Government was

defined when the Fire Research and Safety Act

of 1968 authorized the National Bureau of Standards to undertake a more comprehensive research

program. When the National Science Foundation

established its Research Applied to National

Needs program in 1971, it opened the way to

more extensive fire research.

AMERICA BURNING 133
Some notable achievements have been made.

For example, some of the reactions that take

place in a flame are now understood, which opens

the way to understanding how the addition of

chemicals might inhibit flames. The basic mechanisms of heat radiation are understood almost to

the point where the distances at which other fuels

in a room will ignite by the radiative energy from

a fire can be predicted. In the realm of technological improvements, additives for water have

been developed which reduce friction in a hose.

Other additives make water “light” so that it

floats on top of liquid fuels and smothers flames.

Some Areas for Exploration

There is much to be done in the broad field of

fire research. We have indicated important areas

for specific research throughout the report.

One basic need is to strengthen this grounding

of knowledge about fire in a body of scientific

and engineering theory, so that real-world problems can be dealt with through predictive analyses. The development and testing of new materials

and assemblies, the teaching of fire protection,

the creation of new architectural designs, the

engineering design of more effective fire control

systems, and the development of fire prevention

programs could be greatly expanded and improved if more fundamental understanding of

fire behavior were available.

Human Behavior. Because so many fires are

due to human carelessness, and because so many

people react counterproductively when a fire occurs, the Commission has placed great emphasis

on education as a means of reducing the Nation’s

fire losses. But “carelessness” blankets a range of

behavior from relative innocence and helplessness to subconscious attention-getting or selfdestructiveness. Effective educational efforts will

depend on a much firmer knowledge of why

people cause fires than now exists. Moreover,

those efforts will require studies of what kinds

of fire safety messages work--that is, which kinds

of presentations alter human behavior to reduce

fire accidents and their consequences-rather

than cause citizens to “tune out” (as can happen

if the messages are too scary), or blunt their sensitivity through too much repetition.

Likewise, “arson” covers behavior from pyromania to fire-setting motivated by greed. Better

134 RESEARCH FOR TOMORROW’S FIRE PROBLEM.

understanding of this range of behavior would

greatly aid the apprehension of arsonists, the

search for safeguards against arson, and the

search for alternatives-that is, less destructive

outlets for the mentally sick arsonist, and attractive economic alternatives for those who deliberately set fire to their own property.

Fire dynamics. To the extent that materials

in the built environment are controlled at all,

they are controlled by voluntary standards and

building codes, each of which can be no better

than the test methods specified for measuring fire

performance. Unfortunately, present test methods

often yield numbers that tell little more than how

materials or structures behave in idealized test

configurations. Actual fire performance in a

building depends critically on such factors as

physical layout, interactions between walls, floors,

and ceilings, fuel loads, and the presence of complicating components such as air conditioning

ducts. Thus there is a need for research toward

the development of test methods that more accurately predict real-world fire performance.

Smoke and toxic gases. The physiological

effects of smoke inhalation and tolerance limits

are not known adequately. Neither is much

known about the chemical nature of combustion

products, nor how smoke and gases are influenced

by combustion conditions, such as temperature

and turbulence. Smoke and toxic gases are important hazards, and a better understanding of

their chemical and physical nature, how they are

generated, how they move with lethal effect for

great distances through a building, and their

physiological effects would provide a foundation

of knowledge needed for the development of test

methods, standards, and countermeasures.

Automatic detection. Of basic importance is

finding the best harbinger of fire. Three considerations enter in: reliable early warning, low cost,

and a triggering mechanism that will not be activated by causes other than fire. The best earlywarning detectors now on the market use optical

detectors to sense smoke or electrical means to

detect the particulate products of combustion.

Largely as a result of contracts from the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, a number of industrial and Government laboratories

are investigating carbon monoxide detection by

spectroscopic techniques. Another possible ap-
proach is detection of microscopic particulates,

called aerosols, which are known to be produced

in copious quantities by combustion, but which

themselves are little understood.

Additional basic knowledge is needed on how

fast detectors must react, what they must be sensitive to, and how they should be placed to be

maximally effective.

Fire services. As we discussed in detail in

Chapter 7, there is room for improvement in the

technology of every aspect of firefighting: in the

means by which fire departments are notified of

fires, in the ways in which men and equipment

are dispatched, in firefighters’ personal equipment, in the trucks and hoses and suppression

agents used to put out fires.

State and local pilot programs. To ensure the

prompt introduction of research results, a major

effort in translating research into operational

practice is essential. We envision pilot programs

at the State and local level providing the opportunity for field testing of new research ideas in

the real world, serving as a mechanism for demonstrating the practicality of technological innovations to the fire services, and providing training to assist the fire services in their use.

Goals for Research

Most discussions about fire research focus on

particular research problems, rather than on

larger questions of what the research can accomplish. Yet for new initiatives in fire research to be

justified, the potentials of fire research ought to

be clearly stated.

One need only consider the chief causes of fire

losses-carelessness and shortcomings of designto realize that losses could be significantly reduced

through research. The National Bureau of

Standards has suggested that a 50 percent reduction in all categories of losses is possible. A more

detailed and ambitious set of goals for research

would 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 80

percent;

l Increase in-hospital survival of burn patients

by 50 percent through improved burn care;

l Decrease firefighter injuries by 50 percent

through better personal protective equipment;

l Eliminate 90 percent of all large property losses

through improvements in building design;

l Reduce fire injuries and fatalities at the accident site by 80 percent through safe fabrics,

design of products, detection devices, and onthe-scene care; 

l Increase the fire control capability of fire departments by 50 percent by faster response and

more effective extinguishing methods.

These are long-term goals which, in the absence

of major breakthroughs or absence of implementation, might never be attained. But they are

guideposts for action. It is relevant to note that if

the United States had undertaken its space program with the idea “We might get to the moon”

instead of “We will land men on the moon,” that

event 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-fourth

of the Nation’s expenditures on research related

to fire. There are kinds of research it would be

inappropriate for the Federal Government to

undertake. The development of specific products

should remain in the private sector, as should fire

endurance testing of materials and products.

It is appropriate for the Federal Government

to undertake research that could lead to new products in the long run, especially when industry can

only afford modest research for gradual refinement of its products. Studies on incentives and

harriers to innovation, now under way in the National Science Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards, may lead to strategies of

government-industry cooperation that could shift

to industry a greater share of the research toward

long-term improvements. How to encourage innovation among the manufacturers of firefighting

and related equipment would be one of the

major concerns of the proposed ‘United States

Fire Administration.

Many areas of research will continue to lie

beyond the interest of profit-seeking organizations

and, hence, more likely sponsored by nonprofit

foundations, universities, or the Federal Government. This includes exploratory research into

highly unconventional solutions for which the

risks of arriving at a dead end are too great for

industry to undertake. It includes basic medical

research several steps removed from any new

pharmaceutical or other therapeutic development. It includes research to serve the Government’s own nonprofit ends, such as the pilot

studies that should accompany the development

of new programs in fire safety education.

The Federal Government has developed strong

programs in basic and highly exploratory research concerning fire, notably in the National

Bureau of Standards, the National Science

Foundation, and the National Institutes of

Health. Their programs fill important voids left

by research in the private sector. Desirable as it

might be from the standpoint of economizing,

it is not likely that the private sector could fill

the gaps if the programs were diminished in any

way. The Commission recommends that the

Federal Government retain and strengthen its

programs of fire research for which no nongovernmental alternatives exist. This is not to

say that all federally sponsored research should be

done “in-house.” Throughout the academic and

technological communities there are excellent research resources, and the turning away of research

from defense and aerospace programs provides a

great source of expertise to be tapped.

There ought to be a clear set of priorities in

federally sponsored research. Presently there is

no group in the Federal Government looking at

the total picture of fire research needs-including

the physics and chemistry of fire, as well as medical, behavioral, and technological problems-and

advising the budgetmakers on what programs deserve what level of support. This is an important function which the proposed U.S. Fire

Administration would perform. As it is now, every

agency’s research program is, in effect, competing

for dollars with every other fire research program.

Details of how the U.S. Fire Administration

would carry out this function are discussed in the

next chapter. Certain important aspects deserve

mention here. First, the U.S. Fire Administration

would have a system of data-collecting which

would serve to guide research priorities. The de136 RESEARCH FOR TOMORROW’S FIRE PROBLEM
tailed information it gathered on firefighter injuries, for example, would indicate which injuries

happen most often and deserve the most attention,

as it would also indicate what must be changed

to reduce those injuries.

Second, the U.S. Fire Administration would

be an important clearinghouse of information, for

both the public and private sectors. Thus it would

know what research industry was pursuing, and

it would also know what research problems are

not being pursued and possibly deserve Federal

attention. It would have the important function

of disseminating research information to fire researchers everywhere, so that investigators could

benefit quickly from the accomplishments of their

colleagues and avoid duplicating each other’s

work. In these ways would the entire Nation’s

efforts in fire research be strengthened.

In the next chapter we also discuss the allocation of Federal resources for various purposes, including research. That analysis calls for a neardoubling of the Federal research effort; specifically, the Commission recommends that the

Federal budget for research connected with fire

be increased by $26 million. Our recommendation is based not solely on what federally sponsored research could accomplish in the reduction

of fire losses, but also on the importance of research relative to other kinds of efforts to reduce

losses.

Not a Federal Responsibility Alone

As important as Federal research is for combating the Nation’s fire problems, the responsibility

is not solely the Government’s

Social and legal responsibilities are borne by

the private sector as well. For example, car manufacturers are held responsible for defects in design

or assembly that can lead to accidents. They are

not held accountable, of course, for the stupid or

careless actions of drivers. By the same token, the

manufacturers of materials that go into the built

environment are not responsible for the careless

actions that lead to fire accidents. But what happens to those materials as a fire progresses can

make the difference between a small loss and a

huge one, indeed between life and death. To that

extent do manufacturers share in the obligation

to make the built environment fire-safe.

The Government can require that manufacturers make materials fire-safe, as it has done with

certain fabrics and as we have recommended

that the Consumer Product Safety Commission

do for a whole range of materials and products.

But industry should accept its responsibilities in

the absence of coercion. Accordingly, the Commission recommends that associations of material and product manufacturers encourage their

member companies to sponsor research directed

toward improving the fire safety of the built

environment.

People tend to think of research as an expendable luxury, an activity that can be cut off when

today’s problems, rather than tomorrow’s, cry out

for solution and total consumption of monetary

resources. Behind this view there sometimes lies

resentment that, in supporting research, society

pays well-educated men and women to do what

they enjoy doing, purely for their own satisfaction.

The view is extremely shortsighted. Many of

today’s problems could be quickly solved-or

averted altogether-if yesterday there had been

an adequate investment in research. For many

years there was an under-investment in research

to develop pollution-free automobile engines, and

now the Nation is forced to a headlong rush, expensive and laden with problems, to develop those

engines in time to meet Federal deadlines.

Likewise, problems for tomorrow can be staved

off through adequate investments in research today. There is hope of arresting the so-called energy

crisis through research on alternative, untapped

sources of energy.

Through progress in medicine, automobile design, and pollution control, Americans are fighting

against their destroyers. Some day they will

awaken to the realization that they need not accept destructive fire passively. Research must go

forward now so that, when that day arrives, effective countermeasures against fire will be ready.

Indeed, there are already many Americans who

do not accept destructive fire passively. They

would have welcomed tomorrow’s research accomplishments many years ago.

AMERICA BURNING 137

PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE

19

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

Time and again this report has made evident the

need for Federal initiatives to help combat the

Nation’s fire problem, and also for coordination to

strengthen programs now scattered among Federal agencies. These considerations point to an

overriding need : a permanent Federal agency

specifically concerned with fire.

Emphatically, what is not needed is a Federal

bureaucracy assuming responsibilities that should

be retained by State and local jurisdictions. Fire

prevention, fire suppression, and public education

on fire safety should remain primarily responsibilities of local governments, where familiarity

exists with local conditions and the people

being served. Communities have already invested

heavily in manpower and equipment for fire protection, in recognition that it is a local responsibility. Likewise, regulatory responsibilities for fire

prevention and code enforcement should remain

at State and local levels. Codes and regulations

must respond to changes in the built environment,

and past experience illustrates that State and local

governments are likely to be more dynamic and

responsive to changing needs for different jurisdictions than a single Federal regulatory agency.

The Federal Government can help, however, in

being a national advocate of fire protection and

in providing better training and financial assistance-so that State and local governments and

private enterprise can more effectively reduce

deaths, injuries, and property losses from fire.

Paramount among the objectives is to assist local

fire services to improve their effectiveness and

broaden their responsibilities from primarily fire

suppression to a “fire loss management” orientation designed to prevent fires from happening and

reducing their consequences when they occur.

The United States Fire Administration, as we

have 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 conferences, and to keep the public and all

branches and levels of government informed

on current matters concerning destructive fire;

l To analyze and report on programs related to

fire in other Federal agencies and recommend

changes that would strengthen the Federal

effort;

l Through the creation of a National Fire Academy, to provide improved training and education for fire service personnel, building

designers, 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 overburdened

with Federal criteria but contain simple guidelines for each State fire agency to administer.)

Parallels to the intergovernmental relations envisioned for the U.S. Fire Administration exist in

the field of criminal justice. The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration awards grants

for the strengthening of local law enforcement.

LEAA gathers crime data, keeps criminal records

and statistics for use by local law enforcement

agencies, lends advice to those agencies, and,

through the Law Enforcement Education Program, trains local law enforcement officers.

Counterparts are needed in the field of fire

protection.

Having given considerable thought to the objectives of the U.S. Fire Administration, the

Commission has concluded that the Administration would best be placed in a Federal department that has a primary responsibility for urban

affairs, urban planning, local government assistance, and housing, as well as knowledge of

building requirements. Hence, the Commission

recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration be located in the Department of

Housing and Urban Development. Under the

President’s Departmental Reorganization Program, the proposed successor to HUD, which

would be known as the Department of Community Development, would also retain the urban

affairs responsibilities.

Attachment to a Cabinet-level department is

preferable to an independent commission. There

is considerable feeling in the Executive branch

that the growth of independent commissions

ought to be arrested and reversed. Moreover, independent commissions, as a rule, have a history

of early attention to their needs and later consolidation into departments to achieve support

from the Executive branch. With a Cabinet-level

spokesman for its programs, the U.S. Fire Administration would, over future years, have a better

chance of continuing support.

At the same time, the U.S. Fire Administration

would suffer inattention if buried many organizational levels down in its sponsoring department.

The Fire Technology Division of the Institute for

Applied Technology under the National Bureau

of Standards within the Department of Com1

 See Minority Report of Commissioner Phillips.

140 FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

merce is an example of good intentions and inadequate support. 1

TO provide effective advocacy of fire prevention

and control, and firm executive control, responsibility, and accountability, the U.S. Fire Administration ought to be an Administrator-headed

agency. Figure 1991 proposes an organizational

scheme for the agency. Functions to be provided,

as discussed in previous chapters :

Planning and Evaluation. To provide effective management, the organization must have a

regular process for evaluating the success of its

programs. It is from these evaluations that future

priorities in the allocation of resources are derived.

General Counsel and Administrative Process.

General Counsel provides the legal counsel for

the agency, while Administrative Process handles

the budget, accounting, and personnel, as well as

the technical review of local and State assistance

programs.

National Fire Academy. The Academy, discussed in Chapter 6, has an important function as

a conduit of Federal assistance to local communities. Its educational programs could have a pronounced effect on fire prevention, fire safety in

buildings, and the performance of local fire departments. All segments of the field of fire protection, both public and private, will benefit from

the Academy, and all should have a part in its

development.

Research and Development. This division

sponsors and encourages research in the behavioral, physical sciences, and engineering areas,

which have the greatest potential for reducing

future fire losses. It works in cooperation with the

technically oriented research programs at the National Bureau of Standards and the National Science Foundation, and with private groups. By

also ensuring the flow of information among investigators in fire research, in both government

and private laboratories, the division can hasten

progress in research and discourage waste and

duplication. A close interface with local, State,

and Federal programs, the Academy, and information functions is essential.

Information System. Before effective management of a fire loss reduction program can be

accomplished, good information is vital. Local

and State feedback is essential to program evaluation. 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 governments

should reside in the U.S. Fire Administration.

This function will provide for a nationwide

exchange of information pertaining to fire and

life safety and have data collection, storage, retrieval, and dissemination capability. A uniform

reporting system should be required for all’ fire

jurisdictions and would provide the first comprehensive fire data base in the Nation. The Commission recommends that Federal assistance in

support of State and local fire service programs

bc limited to those jurisdictions complying with

the National Fire Data System reporting requirements. The development of this program could

be contracted to a private organization skilled in

information systems. The National Bureau of

Standards will continue to have a role in data

collection to support its research and engineeringbased technology.

Local and State Model Programs. This division will have the primary responsibility for acting

as liaison with local and State model programs

developed through the Academy or the research

division. Programs that provide assistance to

school fire prevention education, community college fire science, fire service master plan programs,

and public media education would fall into this

division. Federal assistance is envisioned here in

the form of education, information, and program

grants. Assistance to public fire education, local

master plan development, and statewide information systems are examples. A bloc grant system

administered by each State fire agent is anticipated. A State fire agency may be a State fire

commission or the office of the State fire marshal.

Present Federal Roles

The Federal Government is concerned with destructive fire in numerous ways. Research and development activities are scattered among many

different agencies: fire suppression (mostly to protect Federal property), laws affecting the sale and

shipment of hazardous materials, and testing flammability of materials for the purpose of setting

standards are examples of Federal involvement.

Fire prevention and control. Fire prevention

is oriented toward protecting Federal buildings

and installations. In addition, the Forest Service

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains fire control capabilities to protect the Nation’s forests and sponsors educational efforts to

reduce forest fires. The Department of Defense

is concerned not only with the, protection of military equipment and bases, but with the use and

AMERICA BURNING 141
control of fire in warfare. The fire activities within

some departments are complex and not always

easily identified. For example, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration does not have

a fire program per se, but undertakes work related to fire problems as part of mission projects at

a number of different research centers.

The Federal Fire Council was originally established as an interagency advisory group on

matters relating to fire safety. It formed a medium

for pooling talent from agencies for mutual aid

in solving fire problems unique to the Federal

Government, In reality, it has operated at a marginal level for several years. The U.S. Fire Administration will assume this responsibility and

perform this important function for the agencies.

Research. In the realm of fire research, the

Federal Government is a dominant force. In

Chapter 18, we estimated that the fire-oriented

research, development, testing, and evaluation

activities in the Federal Government for fiscal

year 1972 amounted to nearly $27 million. Most

of the research is oriented to hardware solutions;

there is comparatively little work on such behavioral questions as why people ignore fire safety,

why they start tires, or how hardware systems

could be used more efficiently.

Both the National Bureau of Standards and

the National Science Foundation (under its Research Applied to National Needs program) have

small but significant fundamental research programs in combustion and on test methods. The

Forest Service has a major research program in

forest fire prevention and control.

Data and Information. Fire information relating to burns and deaths is collected by the

Center for Vital Statistics in the Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare, and by the Forest Service relating to fire experience in forests and

wildlands. The Occupational Safety and Health

Administration collects information on workrelated fire injuries. The Consumer Product Safety

Commission collects information and conducts investigations on fire accidents involving products

and flammable fabrics. Lastly, the National Bureau of Standards analyzes data relating to

flammable fabrics and also operates a partly automated Fire Information Reference Service for

use 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 that

information it has use for. No national, uniform,

comprehensive data collection and analysis system exists.

Advisory Panels. Generally, each agency with

an extensive research and development program

(of which fire research may be a part) has advisory panels composed of experts from outside

the Government. They advise on the nature and

direction of the agency’s programs. There also exists the National Research Council’s Committee

on Fire Research, which is specifically concerned

with promoting and coordinating fire research.

The U.S. Fire Administration and

Existing Programs

The Commission does not propose that all Federal

fire roles transfer to the US. Fire Administration.

Certainly the U.S. Forest Service has conducted

an excellent fire program and should continue to

do so. The Department of Health, Education, and

Welfare has an excellent medical research and

public education capability; this should be supported and augmented. The research and engineering-based technology programs presently

underway at the National Bureau of Standards

should continue to provide the base needed for

improved fire safety. The research program of

the National Science Foundation is making a

significant contribution to needed fundamental

scientific knowledge, and should continue. The

Department of Housing and Urban Development

should continue to encourage fire safety through

the standards it has developed for its housing programs. The proposed U.S. Fire Administration

would complement and help coordinate these

many activities; it would provide the comprehensive evaluation and guidance necessary to determine areas of greatest need and then mobilize

efforts in that direction; it would act as the central

point in a program of information exchange that

would strengthen all the Federal programs having

to do with fire. And it would fill the voids, providing Federal help where it does not presently

exist-such as providing assistance to local fire

services. The recommended responsibilities of

Federal agencies, and of the private sector, are

shown 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 will

have to be phased, initially attacking the high

priority problems where there is agreement on

solutions. Establishment of the Administration

will be a giant first step in the right direction.

The programs of the U.S. Fire Administration

will also be subject to evolution and changing

priorities. It is important, and should be a matter of continuing policy, that vitally affected

groups, both in and out of government, participate in the planning of the agency’s programs;

that includes fire service organizations, the insurance industry, fire equipment manufacturers,

codes and standards organizations, and especially

the National Fire Protection Association. For the

agency as a whole, this participation can be informal; but for the National Fire Academy, a

formal advisory board should be established.

The projected costs in Table 19-2 can serve as

an indication of minimum operating program

needs and as a starting point for discussion.

Some of the amounts in the table should be

thought of as “seed” monies-that is, funds to aid

and encourage State and local governments to

improve their programs and to sponsor research

and information exchange. The funds in the Federal portion are also intended to overcome present

barriers to innovation by creating the climate that

provides the incentives to private enterprise to

turn their attention to neglected needs in fire protection, For example, paid fire departments

typically spend less than 1 percent of their budgets

on capital and equipment investments. By encouraging them to spend 2 percent, the proposed

program should enlarge the market for new

equipment to the point where industry can afford

major investments in improving firefighting

equipment.

The most important aim of the proposed expenditures is to reduce the Nation’s tragic losses

from fire. The Commission believes that a reduction of 5 percent a year in deaths, injuries, and

property losses is an attainable goal. That rate of

reduction cannot be sustained indefinitely, and

might be expected to level off as losses approach

half of what they are today, It would take about

14 years to reach that plateau, (Bear in mind

that 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 30,000,0001

State and local training assistance 30,000,0001

Research

Equipment upgrading assistance

26,000,0002

Public education

15,000,0001

Firefighter personal protective equip9,600,000

ment

National fire data system

4,000,0001

National Fire Academy

3,740,0001

Administration

4,000,000

2,500,000

Other programs 28,250,000

Burn treatment center, unit and program development (HEW)

National Institutes of Health program

5,000,000

(burn and smoke research) (HEW) 3,250,000

Rural fire protection (USDA, Title IV of

Public Law 92-419) 7,000,0003

Detection and alarm systems and built-in

protection loan insurance (HUD) 10,000,000

Research and engineering-based technology program (NBS) 3,000,000

Total $153,090,0004

1

 These Federal programs require State and local governments to provide matching participation.

2

 The $26 million does not include the current fire

research budgets of Federal agencies. Funds shown here

would be used to contract with public and private agencies where appropriate.

3

 This was the recommended annual funding level for

a 3-year conservative rural fire protection program.

Funds have not, as yet, been appropriated and the Commission feels that funding is more than justified by the

losses in the areas covered.

4

 This budget is an estimate of the average annual expenditure for the first 5 years. The mix of expenditures

will vary as staffs are recruited and trained.

totals of the year preceding, which is a slower attrition than 5 percent this year, 10 percent next

year, 15 percent the year thereafter.) In the first

year, about 600 lives would be saved; at the end

of 5 years, a cumulative total of 8,300 lives would

be saved; at the end of 10 years, a total of 28,000

lives would be saved. During that lo-year period,

119,000 Americans would be spared the trauma

of serious burn injury. Of importance from the

standpoint of cost-effectiveness is that fact that a

5 percent reduction in dollar losses due to property destruction, personal earnings losses, and

burn treatment costs would be $350 million the

first year-which is considerably more than we

have projected for the annual costs of a Federal

program 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 and

Urban Development, (Department of Community

Development)

Establish U.S. Fire Administration

Department of Commerce

(Department of Economic

Affairs)

Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare

(Department of Human

Resources)

Department of Agriculture

(Department of Natural

Resources)

General Services Administration

PRIVATE

National Science Foundation

(RANN)

National Academy of

Sciences

Department of Defense

Consumer Product Safety

Commission

Department of Transportation

Academy

Establish Academy

Academy functions:

(1) Fire service leadership education and training

(2) Develop curricula and model

programs for:

• training fire service instructors -

• 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 for

the Academy

Coordinate fire prevention programs with Academy

Coordinate rural and wildlands fire

training with Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy

Act as disaster research arm for

Academy

Participate with Academy

Participate with Academy in fire

protection and safety activities

for all transportation modes

Information systems

Develop National Fire Data System

• tied in with State and local

systems. develop uniform systems of rep porting

• research information collection

• investigatory responsibilities

for information gathering

• disseminate information

• publish report to President

and Congress yearly on fire

prevention and control status

• review all Federal or federally

sponsored fire pro rams annually and report to O MB

• public education

Research and engineering based

technology fire information sysReport status of programs and fire

budgets to USFA

Investigatory responsibilities to

gather information to support

program

Burn and smoke injury and death

information s stem

Report status of programs and fire

budgets to USFA

Fire facts

Report status of programs and fire

budgets to USFA

Federal building fire experience

information

Report findings of merit to USFA

Contract for development and implementation of information system; commercially distribute

information (NFPA)

National Electronic Injury Surveillance System

Provide transportation fire data

144 FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
Local and State model programs Research and development

Urban fire protection and education program

Implement at State and local level:

information systems grants

state fire training grants

master plan for fire protection

local code enforcement programs

fire euipment grants

fire safety systems analysis

and impact statements

home fire alarm systems

improved fire protection standards in focal and State codes

information systems (UFIRS)

Assist State and local building and

fire code groups in the development of standards

Sponsor research in urban fire

(1) Fire prevention and educafire caused by people (arson

tion:

negligence)

effective fire prevention practices

public education (with HEW)

(2) Fire services:

fire equipment

fire management

firefighter injuries

fire 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 and

alarm systems

principles of fire retardants

fire behavior models

principles of built-in protection

systems

new test methods

nature of basic flammability

fire equipment standards

building fire safety

Evaluate and classify:

building materials

fire hazard properties

Standardize:

fire research physical Science

terminology

Sponsor special education for

teachers

Assist local fire departments and

code enforcement agencies

through notification of hazard

Implement health department fire

prevention programs at local

levels

Sponsor research in:

burn and smoke treatment

public education for fire Safety

(with USFA)

Improve quality and availability of

fire injury medical care

Rural fire protection and fire ed.

ucation program

develop water systems, fi.

nance fire equipment, fire prevention planning, advocate for

the rural environment

Forestand wildlands fire protection

program

Implement Federal building fire

safety design

Conduct research in forest fire behavior and control weather forecast and

systems

early-warning

Sponsor research in Federal building fire safety design

Model code groups implement improved fire protection standards

Sponsor and conduct research in

all fire areas including:

Proprietary interests

Materials testing

Product development

Sponsor research in fire technology

application and basic fire research

Serve as a review committee on fire

needs

Model program for disaster pre.

paredness

Research for disaster preparedness

Flammable fabric and test method

development

Conduct research for transportation

fire safety

AMERICA BURNING 145

PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE

20

WHAT CITIZENS CAN DO

It is an accepted principle of our society that

government ought to intervene to protect citizens when voluntary safeguards are inadequate.

As long as there are drivers who drink, there will

be a need for government efforts to keep them

off the highways. As long as there are unscrupulous merchants, there will be a need for laws and

court procedures to protect consumers. As long as

food processors use additives of unknown hazards

to health, there will be a need for government to

test these chemicals and ban them when

appropriate.

And yet, two themes in American thinking

about government run counter to acceptance of

this principle. First, we as a people do not want

government regulating every aspect of our lives.

Second, we regard government regulation as a

last resort, a morally inferior solution to voluntary

safeguards. We would prefer, in other words, that

in our society merchants and manufacturers want

to protect the public rather than be required to

do so. In brief, we want government that is not

paternalistic and all-encompassing,

A balance must be struck. As President Nixon

pointed 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 also

pledged, it “will act boldly and lead boldly.”

Consider the relevance of public concern to

these observations. First, history has demonstrated

over and over that the pressure of public concern

lies behind voluntary self-regulation. The rating

code of the movie industry is a convenient example. Second, government regulation has wide

acceptability only when it is backed by considerable public concern. It is public concern that

encourages voluntary regulation and legitimates

government regulations.

This Commission harbors no illusions about the

amount of public concern over the deaths, injuries, and property losses from the Nation’s destructive fires. That concern is minuscule when

compared with the magnitude of the problem.

We hope, of course, that this report will serve to

broaden and invigorate public concern over fire

safety. The task to educate and sensitize Americans to the problems of fire safety, both by government and by private groups, must begin now.

To make a difference, public concern must be

channeled toward specific objectives. Any number of this Commission’s recommendations might

serve as focal points for public pressure. At the

AMERICA BURNING 147
Federal level, for example, proposed new actions

that could be hastened through “grassroots” sup

port include :

Extension of flammability standards or labeling requirements beyond rugs, mattresses, and

children’s sleepwear to other kinds of fabrics

and to other classes of materials, such as those

that go into home furnishings;

Undertaking of a long-term, multiple-media,

public service advertising campaign to make

Americans more conscious of fire safety;

Establishment of a United States Fire Administration to improve the fire services and of a National Fire Academy to upgrade their training,

together with programs of financial assistance

to local fire departments;

Extension of the number of hospital facilities

providing burn treatment and support of research to improve the treatment of burn and

smoke inhalation injuries.

Citizens can also press for improvements at the

State and local levels:

Strengthening of the fire safety provisions of

building codes;

Shifting of fire department priorities toward

fire prevention, with emphasis on inspection

and educational programs;

Encouragement of regional cooperative arrangements among fire departments;

Providing adequate fire safety education in the

schools and to preschool youngsters in nursery

schools and day care centers.

Americans can take action to protect themselves from fire.

148 WHAT CITIZENS CAN DO
The Commission is confident that every concerned citizen who has access to pen and paper

can find an appropriate avenue of expression,

whether it is a letter to an editor or a letter to a

public official elected to serve him. Arousing the

interest of the press is important for two reasons:

The press has the investigative tools to explore

the adequacy of fire protection, particularly at the

local level; it also has considerable power to mold

public opinion.

Where Fire Safety Begins

In this report we have tried to make clear that

fire is a potential threat to the life and well-being

of every American, that while it has victimized

the poor disproportionately no one is immune to

harm from fire.

But prudence in daily living can minimize the

chance of fire and make the difference between

life and death if fire strikes. The minimal precautions in the home are well-established, if seldom

observed: a well-maintained heating system, no

overloaded electrical circuits, flammable liquids

stored in tightly fitting containers and away from

heaters and furnaces, absence of rubbish, unobstructed stairways, matches out of reach of children. Beyond these minimal precautions lie positive steps: the installation of fire extinguishers,

fire escapes, or escape ladders, and-most important-early-warning detectors. Another measure, costing not a cent, is a family discussionand rehearsal-of steps to be taken during various

kinds of fire emergencies.

Prudence must be exercised outside the home

as well. If there appear to be dangerous conditions

at the place of work, these should be reported to

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. A conscious effort to note the location of fire

exits when entering a building or a restaurant

will likely become, in time, an ingrained habit.

Lastly, acquainting friends with the subject of

fire safety may help to save a life or two some day.

America’s Future

Twenty-five hundred years ago, the philosopher

Heraclitus observed : “All things are exchanged

for fire, and fire for all things-as wares are exchanged for gold and gold for wares.”

Today we would put it differently: that heat

energy is involved in the processes of creation and

transformation, as it is involved as well in destruction and decay. Heat is both friend and foe.

Lumber, petroleum and its distillates, electrical

energy : Name any major source of destructive

fire, and one realizes at once that we cannot get

along without them. But we live in a tenuous

relationship with them.

Through most of American history, resources

were so abundant that we were blind to that

tenuous relationship. What fire consumed could

easily be replaced. Coincidentally, this Nation

grew to maturity during a century and a half

when death was accepted stoically. Whether

by diphtheria, typhoid, or fire, death was entitled

to its toll, even among young children. Advances

in medical science changed American hopes and

expectations, though fire never received the attention that went into the major diseases. As for

material resources, only recently has the United

States been converted to the view forced on other

nations long ago: that resources are limited and

need to be carefully managed.

During the years of America’s development,

one noble view has prevailed: that a citizen is

entitled to any behavior that is not injurious to his

neighbors. What has changed over the years is the

concept of what is injurious behavior, and it has

been broadened as a result of attention to ecological considerations. A dramatic example of how

that concept has widened is the restrictions impaced on major fuel users during the winter of

1972-73. What might come to prevail, in future

years, is the view that a fire caused by one American is a danger and an unfair cost to his fellow

citizens.

It is appropriate to close with a reminder of an

observation made earlier in this report. Many

Americans, referencing the Second Amendment,

vehemently defend their right to possess guns as

protection against intruders. Happily, it has not

been a task of this Commission to debate gun

control. What is worthy of remark is that Americans have a duty, much more than a right, to

protect themselves and others from fire.

AMERICA BURNING 149
MINORITY REPORT

Minority Report of Anne Wight Phillips, M.D.,

Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General and Youville Hospitals.

TO KEEP THEM SAFE

A Tribute.-This minority of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control commends

the President and the Congress for their concern

for public safety and wishes to express her esteem

for the dedicated majority of the Commission with

some of whose recommendations she concurs although taking the liberty of disagreeing with others.

FIGURE 1

I am indebted to Patty and her parents for permission

to present this series of pictures, which emphasize, more

adequately than words can tell, the urgency of our fire

problem. This picture was taken at age 8, before her

burn injury.

Top photo by Frank Kelly, Boston Herald American

MINORITY REPORT OF COMMISSIONER

ANNE W. PHILIPS, M.D.

Mr. President and Members of the Congress of

the United States:

This minority, although endorsing many of the

conclusions and recommendations of the majority of

the Commission, cannot approve the following :

I,

II.

III.

The magnitude of the projected budget for the

majority’s program ($153,090,000)

The location of responsibility for all of the nation’s fire problems within a single agency and

department

The proposed paramount objective for the new

U.S. Fire Administration and the resulting distribution of resources recommended

IV. The proposed interim budget for the National

Bureau of Standards

I. The Minority Opposes the Projected Budget

The saving of a single life is not justified, if for

the same expenditure of funds and effort, it is possible to save more than one. Neither in direction nor

magnitude can I support the majority’s projected

budget, for I believe that the saving in lives, property, and human suffering, which would be achieved

by the Commission majority’s program, can be

equalled or exceeded with a significantly smaller

budget.

II. The Minority Opposes the U.S. Fire

Administration

At the end of the first half year as a member of

the Commission I was in favor of the creation of a

single Federal agency to coordinate the activities of

all agencies concerned with fire in the Federal GOVernment. The need for careful planning for the Nation’s fire programs and the prospect of economy

through reduced duplication and administrative

overhead seemed to justify it. Reluctantly, I have

come to take the opposite position for the following

reasons :

1. Likelihood of neglect of important aspects of the

fire problem

In whatever department the proposed U.S. Fire

Administration settles, it must, inevitably, (unless it

is very large) lack expert knowledge and special

interest in those fire problems, which are primarily

concerned with the interests of other Federal departments. Even with the best of intentions, needed

programs outside the major thrust of the Administration and the interests of the chosen department

will be down-graded or neglected, receiving less

attention and funding than they merit-in part because the department and the administration will

151
not have the background to see their importance and

in part because the outside department will have

less interest in pursuing fire programs, considering

them Fire Administration matters.

Judging from the proposed budget, this downgrading process has already begun.

2. Limited national resources

At its first meeting, the National Commission on

Fire Prevention and Control unanimously adopted

as its objective the reduction of the losses of life and

property from destructive fires. A glance at the majority’s proposed budget will indicate that any prospects of financial savings, due to better administration or wasteful duplication, may be of fleeting

benefit in the face of the high costs of the proposed

programs, some of which may have little impact on

the losses of life and property from destructive fires.

In view of our limited resources it appears wise to

spend such funds as can be made available on solutions to the fire problem, using existing agencies,

rather than on creating a new administration and

new demands for funds.

3. Existing agencies could make substantial strides

in fire prevention and control

It is sound policy to give responsibility for any

enterprise to those with special knowledge and ability in the field, but impossible in this case, since no

single department has “expertise” in all aspects of

the fire problem. There are many people with such

specialized knowledge and ability in the various

Federal departments and in the private sector, who

are ready, willing, and able to go to work on reducing the Nation’s fire losses. It seems the part

of wisdom to use them.

4. Loss of valuable volunteer effort

It is apparent from the programs proposed for

the U.S. Fire Administration that, if implemented

as written, the Administration would take over

many functions which are now carried out-without cost to the taxpayer-by private enterprise.

This minority cannot contemplate with complacency the demise of the National Fire Protection

Association, for example, which in the 78 years of

its existence, has, through its fire prevention efforts,

its educational programs and its life safety codes,

become a world leader in the continuing war against

fire. No one will ever know the number of lives,

jobs, and millions of dollars worth of property saved

by their endeavors.

If a U.S. Fire Administration is to be, let the

enabling legislation be so drawn that maximum

use is made of such private agencies. It would seem

simpler and cheaper and quicker to call upon them

for their expert assistance now, without the creation of a new Government agency.

152

5. White knight effect

The fire problem has wide ramifications-social,

political, scientific, economic, and so on. The proposed multifaceted US. Fire Administration, by

taking on all aspects of the fire problem, may, like

the white knight, gallop off in all directions, spreading itself too thin to prove the master of any. It

would seem that there is more to be gained by

tackling smaller aspects of the problem and handling

that little well.

6. The Commission recommendations run roughshod over Title I

Congress, by Title I of the Fire Research and

Safety Act of 1968 (see App. I), authorized the

Secretary of Commerce to conduct, directly, or

through grants, fire research, educational programs,

a fire information reference service, and so on. In

that act Congress also assured the continuation of

other existing Federal fire programs by stating that

“nothing contained in this title shall be deemed to

repeal, supersede, or diminish existing authority or

responsibility of any agency or instrumentality of the

Federal Government.” Congress, therefore, after

due deliberation, felt it unwise to remove all fire

problems to a single department, although giving

the Department of Commerce the lion’s share of

the responsibility. This Commission minority finds

itself in agreement with them.

FIGURE 2

Patty’s face on her first admission to the Shriners’ Burns

Institute in Galveston. She underwent more than 3

months of reconstructive surgery, costing approximately

$27.000. (The darkening of her hair at this age is normal for her family coloring). Figure 3 shows her appearance after many operations.
7. Inevitable delay

Statistics tell us that 300,000 children are going

to be seriously burned in this country in the next

2 years. Their suffering depends upon our speed

(Figs. 1, 2, and 3). Admittedly, we are never going

to prevent all fire accidents, but there is sound evidence that many of the victims can be spared if

fire safety education programs are promptly initiated. With swift and adequate funding, the Department of Commerce might have the multimedia

education campaign recommended by the Commission well underway before hearings on the proposed U.S. Fire Administration can begin.

8. Danger of pressure from special groups

Although in the majority of instances the interests

of special groups in the fire field will run parallel

with the interests of the Nation, the situation should

not be created where the Nation’s fire interests

could be subordinated to those of any special group.

III-A. The Minority Questions the Direction of

Emphasis for the U.S. Fire Administration

This Commissioner believes that, if there is to be

an all-encompassing U.S. Fire Administration, its

paramount objective should be the same as that

adopted by the Commission: the reduction of the

losses of life and property from destructive fires.

Contributing to that objective should be programs

such as firesafety education for the general public,

FIGURE 3.

Results after extensive plastic reconstruction. Patty wishes

no further surgery at this time.

applied research to produce a safer environment,

basic research on the nature of fire and smoke, their

behavior and control, improved education for members of the fire service, and so on,

The concept set forth in Chapter 19, that assistance to local fire services should be paramount

among the objectives of the proposed US. Fire

Administration I cannot accept.

Tremendous credit should be given to the fire

service for its ready acceptance of the concept that

firemen should serve primarily as “fire preventers”,

rather than “firefighters.” They will need help in

changing to this new position. Even before this

shift, there was a need for better education of the

fire officer-better training in command, management, educational and training techniques, fire suppression, community relations, arson, and so on, to

which the new emphasis on fire prevention must be

added.

I believe that creation of a National Fire Academy

is needed, but not as an objective ranking higher

than all others. If a secondary objective is to be assigned, let it be to knowledge-new knowledge

through research and dissemination of existing

knowledge. Widespread public education in fire

safety principles should be our first concern.

There is an old saying in the fire service, cited in

the Commission report, that “The three principal

causes of fire are men, women, and children.” Statistics bear this out, making it crystal clear that

most deaths, most injuries, and most fires are caused

by people. Since people are the cause of the overwhelming majority of fires, it is reasonable to believe that people must be included in the solution.

Much can be done by making clothing fire resistant and by installing automatic extinguishing

systems and early detection systems-there have

been no recorded instances of multiple deaths in

buildings fully equipped with operational sprinklers,

for example-but man can, and does, circumvent

the devices installed for his protection, painting

over sprinkler heads, propping open smoke and fire

doors and putting a penny in the fuse box. There

is no substitute for understanding how to prevent

fires 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 small

fire education campaigns. No one had probed our

citizens’ basic fire knowledge.

Since an incredible delay is necessitated by Federal restrictions on questionnaires, a survey of our

citizens’ knowledge was undertaken independently

of the Commission and without its financial sup153
port.’ Initially several hundred adults and children

around the Nation were interviewed. Then a

questionnaire was devised and is now being used in

schools, together with an answer sheet, SO that students 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 own

firesafety knowledge before reading further, The

answers 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 pouring

in under the door (with no telephone and no fire

escape), 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 fire

escapes are?

(b) If the answer to 6(a) was “Yes,” do YOU depend

on being able to see the exit to find it, or do you

figure out how to find it in the dark or in thick

smoke?

Do you have a family escape plan, including ways of

getting out of your house if the stairs or doors are

blocked by fire, and a meeting place outside the

house?

8. What should you do (or should your wife or mother

do) 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 makes

you sleepy and kills you?

10. Assume you plan to hang by your hands from a window ledge and then drop to the earth below. Estimate in feet the distance you could drop and still

have a 50:50 chance of surviving without serious

injury.

11. (a) What is the reason for having fuses in an electric

circuit?

(b) What strength fuse should be used in an

ordinary lighting circuit?

12. What number should you dial to report a fire by telephone, 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 profound

of the postage from her own limited resources. She is gratitude for assistance in this survey rendered by Chief

indebted to Harvard Medical School for a small supple- Robert Fly of Kirkland, Wash., and Chief Merrill Hendmentary outlay for postage. ricks of Dallas, Tex.

154

13.

14.

15.

16.

When is an electric cord dangerous? (give at least

two 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 and

the first match goes out too soon, what should you

do?

What is meant by “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 Public

Fire Safety Knowledge

Data from 2,109 Americans of all ages from

Maine to Florida and New York to California follows. 2

 It would be presumptuous to generalize from

this small sampling to the Nation as a whole, but

thus far the findings have been surprisingly consistent from State to State and from one school district

to another.

Less than 30, out of every 100 teenagers questioned,

knew that in the presence of smoke they should

stoop low or crawl out of the fire area.

Half of the youngsters from 7 to 18 questioned

would do something dangerous if the frying pan

caught fire, attempting to carry it or throw water

on it. Teenagers were no more knowledgeable

than children from 7 through 12.

Over 500 people questioned did not know that opening a hot door during a fire would almost certainly expose them to heat above human tolerance. This group included 44 out of 177 teachers.

Almost no children under seven knew that they

should drop and roll if their clothing caught fire.

Very few families had a well thought out escape

plan, including a predesignated meeting place

outside the house.

Three-quarters of the adults questioned recommended the use of too strong a fuse for an ordinary lighting circuit.

Asked what they would do if trapped in a fifth floor

room with flames outside in the hall and smoke

pouring in under the door (with no telephone and

no fire escape), only 3 out of 10, old or young,

thought to stuff anything into the death-dealing

crack. Some, of all ages, including teachers, said

they would jump.

39, out of every 100 adults questioned, would react

dangerously if their clothing ignited, many failing

to comprehend the speed with which fire can

spread to the neck and shoulders from the trouser

cuff or hemline (Fig. 5) .
FIGURE 5

The need for public fire safety education is clear.

That it can be effective is documented by the Commission in Chapter 15. Other evidence is available.

Hopefully, my objection to the direction proposed

for the U.S. Fire Administration now appears justified.

What of the budget?

III-B. The Minority Opposes the Budget

Allocations

My main objections to the proposed budget are

threefold :

1. Proposed budget is not responsive to the concerns of the Nation’s fire chiefs.-In the early days

of this Commission, a questionnaire was sent out to

fire chiefs throughout the Nation. Replies from

10,000 chiefs have been tabulated, Under the heading “Evaluation of Fire Department Problems” the

chiefs were asked to rank “in order from most serious

to least serious” the problem areas of concern to

them. Unselfishly, the chiefs gave top ranking to

“lack of effective public education on fire safety.”

Inadequate training and education for fire service

personnel was listed eighth and the need for improved fire department apparatus and personnel

protective equipment ninth. The proposed budget

fails to reflect their considered opinions.

155
2. Need for pilot projects.-The majority of the

Commission has recommended that every local fire

jurisdiction prepare a master plan designed to meet

the community’s present and future needs, and $30

million are budgeted for local master plan development. Similarly $15 million have been set aside for

equipment upgrading and $10 million for detection

and alarm systems and built-in protection loan insurance, We do not know whether these programs

will reduce the losses of life and property from destructive property. These, and untried educational

programs, should be tested on a local or regional

basis through pilot projects, before investing large

amounts of money on their implementation nationwide. 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 not

produce the type of program the Commisison has

envisioned in chapter 15. There are 25 million children in this Nation between kindergarten and sixth

grade. The $6 million specified for elementary

school education on chart 15.2 is estimated by both

private and Government experts to be insufficient to

put one piece of effective material in the hands of

each school child. Ten million would be required to

supply effective graded materials to each of the

Nation’s 1.3 million elementary school teachers.

Other means, such as using existing films and visual

aids, close-circuit TV, etc. should be explored, but

it seems unlikely that the proposed budget will be

adequate to achieve the desired results.

IV. Minority Finds Interim Budget Insufficient

The setting of the interim budget at $3 million for

research and engineering programs fairly well precludes the National Bureau of Standards from acting in accordance with most of its mandate under

Title I during the next year or two. Assigned an inadequate budget of $5 million at the outset and

underfunded at that, it can be reasonably expected

to continue to do only those things for which it has

the greatest research and engineering ability. The

NIFE program (National Inventory of Fire Experience) for cooperative effort between the Bureau of

Standards and the National Fire Protection Association will probably be left in abeyance because of

the uncertainty of its future. If a national fire data

system is to be set up under the US. Fire Administration, and essentially independent of them both,

there may be little initiative to go forward.

Almost certainly 2 years and more will pass

before any real Federal fire safety education program is undertaken (whether through grants or

otherwise), while week after week more Pattys are

carried into the Nation’s hospitals (Figs. 2 & 3).

156

DISCUSSION

I. Budget

Although in my opinion the total budget proposed by the majority of the Commission is too

big, yet what has been spent on fire prevention and

control by the Federal Government in the past

is too small.

II. Measures To Reduce Injuries and Loss of Life

and Property From Destructive Fires

It is the conviction of this minority that without

a continuing massive program to educate the public

in simple fire safety measures, a substantial reduction in our tragic American fire toll cannot be

expected. The principal measures recommended to

save lives, suffering and property are:

1. A massive multimedia, recipient-oriented public

education campaign.

2. Fire education in the schools.

Comparisons of deaths in U.S. military personnel (Army,

Navy, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Air Force) resulting

from actions by hostile forces in Vietnam, 1961 through

1972, and deaths from U.S. fires for the same period

(Statistics from the Department of Defense and the

National Fire Protection Association).
3. Fire department involvement in fire safety education of commercial, industrial, and institutional

personnel and in an optional inspection program

for dwellings.

4. Development of a reliable and inexpensive

smoke and fire detection system for dwellings.

5. Reduction of the hazards of flammable wearing apparel.

6. Use of noncombustible interior finish materials

in residences and places of business and assembly.

7. Complete automatic fire extinguishing systems

for homes (and hospitals) for the incapacitated and

for high-rise buildings.

8. A program of fire safety training for the health

educator aides of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, who, because of their rapport

with the residents of high-risk areas may be able to

teach fire safety principles on a person to person

basis.

9. Increased research on smoke and smoke inhalation injury which is responsible for more than

half of the Nation’s fire deaths.

III, Principal Measures To Improve the Fire

Services

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 inspection programs.

Minority Recommendations

1. Continued support of existing fire programs in

the Federal Government.

2. Reduction of the projected total additional

fire budget by $100 million during the build-up

years and $75 million during the operating years,

subject to subsequent review.

3. Retention of the Department of Commerce

as the principal focus for the Federal fire effort,

in accordance with the provisions of Title I of the

Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968.

4. Swift and adequate funding of the Department of Commerce to permit early institution of a

massive. multimedia fire safety education campaign.

5. Enactment of new legislation to assign responsibility, for direct support to the fire services, to the

Department of Housing and Urban Development,

including the establishment of a national fire

academy.

6. Creation of a new temporary Commission in

1983 to assess the effectiveness of the Federal fire

programs and make recommendations to the President and the Congress for further steps to diminish

the Nation’s annual toll from fire.

7. Increased use of the oversight function of the

appropriate committees to assure assessment of effectiveness and adequate planning by the departments during the interim.

This minority opposes the creation of a new Federal fire agency at this time. During the proposed

review in 1983 it would be appropriate to consider

whether the Nation’s interests would be better

served by the establishment of a Federal agency for

fire research and education in the Department of

Commerce.

This minority urges the President and the Congress in considering these recommendations and

those of the majority of the Commission, to use as

your yardstick, the probable reduction of life and

property losses if the measures suggested are

adopted.

In conclusion, I support the position of the majority of the Commission that expanded Federal

action is needed in the fire field and that, properly

directed, the investment will pay off handsomely, A

few final words may emphasize the need:

As grim as were our losses due to enemy action

in Vietnam, they were small compared with our Nation’s fire casualties for the same period (Fig. 6).

Smoke and fire seriously injure 300,000 Americans

every year and kill nearly 12,000. How many are

12,000? How many people could you call by name

if you met them on the street? 2,000? 4,000? In this

Nation, fire and smoke kill more people each and

every year than the average person knows and

gravely injures more than he has ever met.

Respectfully submitted,

ANNE WIGHT PHILLIPS.

SELF-SCORING THE FIRE SAFETY

QUESTIONNAIRE

157
158

1

 The pressure on a CO, extinguisher is generally about

600 lbs.; Pressure on an all purpose extinguisher is generally about 300 lbs. Stand off from the fire 7 or 8 feet.
Add up your points to determine your fire safety score.

Maximum possible score=100 (101 for parachute

jumper).

159
APPENDIX I

PUBLIC LAW 90-259

(90th Congress, S. 1124, Mar. 1, 1968)

AN ACT

To amend the Organic Act of the National Bureau

of Standards to authorize a fire research and safety

program, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the

“Fire Research and Safety Act of 1968”.

TITLE I-FIRE RESEARCH AND SAFETY

PROGRAM

DECLARATION OF POLICY

SEC. 101. The Congress finds that a comprehensive fire research and safety program is needed in

this country to provide more effective measures

of protection against the hazards of death, injury,

and damage to property. The Congress finds that it

is desirable and necessary for the Federal Government, in carrying out the provisions of this title, to

cooperate with and assist public and private agencies. The Congress declares that the purpose of this

title is to amend the Act of March 3, 1901, as

amended, to provide a national fire research and

safety program including the gathering of comprehensive fire data; a comprehensive fire research

program ; fire safety education and training programs; and demonstrations of new approaches and

improvements in fire prevention and control, and

reduction of death, personal injury, and property

damage. Additionally, it is the sense of Congress

that the Secretary should establish a fire research

and safety center for administering this title and

carrying out its purposes, including appropriate fire

safety liaison and coordination.

AUTHORIZATION OF PROGRAM

SEC. 102. The Act entitled “An Act to establish

the National Bureau of Standards”, approved

March 3, 1901, as amended (15 U.S.C. 271-278e),

is further amended by adding the following sections:

“SEC. 16. The Secretary of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Secretary’) is authorized

to--

“(a) Conduct directly or through contracts or

grants-

“(1) investigations of fires to determine their

causes, frequency of occurrence, severity, and

other pertinent factors;

“(2) research into the causes and nature of

fires, and the development of improved methods

and techniques for fire prevention, fire control,

and reduction of death, personal injury, and

property 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, including the collection, analysis, and dissemination

of data, research results, and other information,

derived from this program or from other sources

and related to fire protection, fire control, and

reduction of death, personal injury, and property

damage;

“(5) educational and training programs to improve, among other things-

“(A) the efficiency, operation, and organization of fire services, and

“(B) the capability of controlling unusual

fire-related hazards and fire disasters; and

“(6) projects demonstrating-

“(A) improved or experimental programs of

fire prevention, fire control, and reduction of

death, personal injury, and property damage,

“(B) application of fire safety principles in

construction, or

“(C) improvement of the efficiency, operation, or organization of the fire services.

“(b) Support by contracts or grants the development, for use by educational and other nonprofit

institutions, of-

“ (1) fire safety and fire protection engineering

or science curriculums; and

"(2) fire safety courses, seminars, or other instructional materials and aids for the above curriculums or other appropriate curriculums or

courses of instruction.

“SEC. 17. With respect to the functions authorized

by section 16 of this Act-

“(a) Grants may be made only to States and

local governments, other non-Federal public agencies, and nonprofit institutions. Such a grant may

be up to 100 per centum of the total cost of the

project for which such grant is made. The Secretary shall require, whenever feasible, as a condition

of approval of a grant, that the recipient contribute

money, facilities, or services to carry out the purpose for which the grant is sought. For, the purposes

of this section, ‘State’ means any State of the United

States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth

of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the

Canal Zone, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands; and ‘public agencies’

includes combinations or groups of States or local

governments.

“(b) The Secretary may arrange with and reimburse the heads of other Federal departments and
agencies for the performance of any such functions,

and, as necessary or appropriate, delegate any of

his powers under this section or section 16 of this

Act with respect to any part thereof, and authorize

the redelegation of such powers.

“(c) The Secretary may perform such functions

without regard to section 3648 of the Revised

Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529).

“(d) The Secretary is authorized to request any

Federal department or agency to supply such statistics, data, program reports, and other materials

as he deems necessary to carry out such functions.

Each such department or agency is authorized to

cooperate with the Secretary and, to the extent permitted by law, to furnish such materials to the

Secretary. The Secretary and the heads of other

departments and agencies engaged in administering programs related to fire safety shall, to the maximum extent practicable, cooperate and consult in

order to insure fully coordinated efforts.

“(e) The Secretary is authorized to establish

such policies, standards, criteria, and procedures

and to prescribe such rules and regulations as he

may deem necessary or appropriate to the administration of such functions or this section, including

rules and regulations which-

“(1) provide that a grantee will from time to

time, but not less often than annually, submit

a report evaluating accomplishments of activities

funded under section 16, and

“(2) provide for fiscal control, sound accounting procedures, and periodic reports to the Secretary regarding the application of funds paid under

section 16.”

NONINTERFERENCE WITH EXISTING FEDERAL

PROGRAMS

SEC. 103. Nothing contained in this title shall

be deemed to repeal, supersede, or diminish existing authority or responsibility of any agency or

instrumentality of the Federal Government.

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 104. There are authorized to be appropriated, for the purposes of this Act, $5,000,000 for

the period ending June 30, 1970.

TITLE II-NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

FINDINGS AND PURPOSE

SEC. 201. The Congress finds and declares that

the growing problem of the loss of life and property

from fire is a matter of grave national concern;

that this problem is particularly acute in the Nation’s

urban and suburban areas where an increasing proportion of the population resides but it is also of

national concern in smaller communities and rural

areas; that as population concentrates, the means

for controlling and preventing destructive fires has

become progressively more complex and frequently

beyond purely local capabilities; and that there

is a clear and present need to explore and develop

more effective fire control and fire prevention

measures throughout the country in the light of

existing and foreseeable conditions. It is the purpose of this title to establish a commission to undertake a thorough study and investigation of this

problem with a view to the formulation of recommendations whereby the Nation can reduce the

destruction of life and property caused by fire in

its cities, suburbs, communities, and elsewhere.

ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION

SEC. 202. (a) There is hereby established the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control

(hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”)

which shall be composed of twenty members as follows: the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of

Housing and Urban Development, and eighteen

members appointed by the President. The individuals so appointed as members ( 1) shall be eminently

well qualified by training or experience to carry out

the functions of the Commission, and (2) shall be

selected so as to provide representation of the views

of individuals and organizations of all areas of the

United States concerned with fire research, safety,

control, or prevention, including representatives

drawn from Federal, State, and local governments,

industry, labor, universities, laboratories, trade associations, and other interested institutions or organizations. Not more than six members of the

Commission shall be appointed from the Federal

Government. The President shall designate the

Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Commission.

(b) The Commission shall have four advisory

members composed of-

( 1) two Members of the House of Representatives who shall not be members of the same political party and who shall be appointed by the

Speaker of the House of Representatives, and

(2) two Members of the Senate who shall not

be members of the same political party and who

shall be appointed by the President of the Senate.

The advisory members of the Commission shall not

participate, except in an advisory capacity, in the

formulation of the findings and recommendations

of the Commission.

(c) Any vacancy in the Commission or in its advisory membership shall not affect the powers of the

Commission, but shall be filled in the same manner

as the original appointment.

DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION

SEC. 203. (a) The Commission shall undertake a

comprehensive study and investigation to determine

practicable and effective measures for reducing the

destructive effects of fire throughout the country in

addition to the steps taken under sections 16 and 17

AMERICA ,BURNING 161
of the Act of March 3, 1901 (as added by title I of

this Act) . Such study and investigation shall include,

without being limited to-

(1) a consideration of ways in which fires can

be more effectively prevented through technological advances, construction techniques, and improved inspection procedures;

(2) an analysis of existing programs administered or supported by the departments and agencies of the Federal Government and of ways in

which such programs could be strengthened so as

to lessen the danger of destructive fires in

Government-assisted housing and in the redevelopment of the Nation’s cities and communities:

(3) an evaluation of existing fire suppression

methods and of ways for improving the same. including procedures for recruiting and soliciting

the necessary personnel ;

(4) An evaluation of present and future needs

(including long-term needs) of training and education for fire-service personnel;

(5) a consideration of the adequacy of current tire communication techniques and suggestions for the standardization and improvement of

the apparatus and equipment used in controlling

fires ;

(6) an analysis of the administrative problems

affecting the efficiency or capabilities of local fire

departments or organizations: and

(7) an assessment of local, State, and Federal

responsibilities in the development of practicable

and effective solutions for reducing fire losses.

(b) In carrying out its duties under this section

the Commission shall consider the results of the

functions carried out by the Secretary of Commerce

under sections 16 and 17 of the Act of March 3,

1901 (as added by title I of this Act), and consult

regularly with the’ Secretary in order’ to coordinate

the work of the Commission and the functions carried out under such sections 16 and 17.

(c) The Commisison shall submit to the President and to the Congress a report with respect to its

findings and recommendations not later than two

years after the Commission has been duly organized.

as the Commission deems necessary to carry out its

functions under this title.

(c) Subject to such rules and regulations as may

be adopted by the Commssion, the Chairman, without regard to the provisions of title 5, United States

Code, governing appointments in the competitive

service, and without regard to the provisions of

chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such

title relating to classification and General Schedule

pay rates, shall have the power-

(1) to appoint and fix the compensation of

such staff personnel as hc deems necessary, and

(2) to procure temporary and intermittent

services to the same extent as is authorized by

section 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 executive branch of the Government shall serve without

compensation in addition to that received in his regular employment, but shall be entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary

expenses incurred by him in connection with the

performance of duties vested in the Commission.

(b) Members of the Commission, other than

those referred to in subsection (a), shall receive

compensation at the rate of $100 per day for each

day they are engaged in the performance of their

duties as members of the Commission and shall be

entitled to reimbursement for travel, subsistence,

and other necessary expenses incurred by them in

the performance of their duties as members of the

Commission.

EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION

POWERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 204. (a) The Commission or, on the authorization of the Commission, any subcommittee or

member thereof, may, for the purpose of carrying

out the provisions of this title, hold hearings, take

testimony, and administer oaths or affirmations to

witnesses appearing before the Commission or any

subcommittee or member thereof.

SEC. 206. There are authorized to be appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, such sums as may be necessary

to carry out this title.

EXPIRATION OF THE COMMISSION

SEC. 207. The Commission shall cease to exist

thirty days after the submission of its report under

section 203 (c) 

Approved March 1, 1968.

Legislative history

HOUSE REPORT No. 522 accompanying H.R.

11284 (Comm. on Science and Astronautics).

SENATE REPORT No, 502 (Comm. on Commerce) .

(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 passed

furnish 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 II

HEARING 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 AssociaDepartment, 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 ProtecDavid N. Francis, President, Fire Equipment Manufacturers 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, Lancaster, Pa.

Raymond Hill, Chief, Los Angeles City Fire Department, Los Angeles, Calif.

Truman G. Blocker, M.D., Burn Specialist, Galveston, Tex.

Melvin Stark? Vice President for Government Affairs, American Insurance Association, New York,

N.Y:

Terry B. Hayes, Assistant Executive Secretary, Fire

Marshals Association of North America, Boston,

Mass.

James R. Dowling, Director, Codes and Regulations Center, The American Institute of Architects.

(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, Washington, D.C.

Hon. Jerry L. Pettis, Congressman, State of California.

Henri O’Bryant, Jr., Clothing Manufacturer, Los

Angeles, Calif.

Joseph Galvin, Fire Chief of Battalion 12, New

York City Fire Department, New York, N.Y.

Gerald Maatman, President, National Loss Control Services Corp., Long Grove, Ill.

Wilbur A. Sanders, Deputy Commissioner, Public

Buildings Service, General Services Administraton, Washington, D.C.

Lt. David Echols, Baltimore Fire Department, Baltimore, Md.

Quinton Wells, Assistant Commissioner for Technical and Credit Standards, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

\

Martin M. Brown, President, Society of Fire Protection 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 Department, 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 Safety

Project, Railway Progress Institute-Association

of American Railroads, Chicago, 111.

Martin Grimes, Director, Fire Service Division, National Fire Protection Association, Boston, Mass.

Dennis Parker, Fire Chief, Collegeville, Pa.

AMERICA BURNING 163
APRIL 25, 1972

Edwin N. Searl, Vice President, Insurance Services

Office, New York, N.Y.

C. J. Winquist, Vice President, Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc., Westchester, 111.

John A. Rockett, Chief, Fire Services Section, Fire

Technology Division, National Bureau of Standards, Washington. D.C.

Matthew Jimenez, Chief, Hayward Fire Department, Hayward, Calif.

Henry Smith, Chief, Fireman Training School,

Texas A. & M., College Station, Tex.

Harvey Ryland, General Research Corp., Santa

Barbara, 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 Protection

and Research, Inc., Phoenix, Ariz.

Dr. Thomas G. Bell, Executive Vice President,

American Nursing Home Association, Washington, D.C.

Richard E. Stevens, Director, Engineering Services,

National Fire Protection Association, Boston,

Mass.

Irving Einhorn, Professor, Material Science Engineering, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

John Ed Ryan, Engineer, National Forest Products

Association, 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 Standards

Committee, American Institute of Architects, Los

Angeles, Calif.

JUNE 28, 1972

Max L. Feldman, General Manager, and Jerry

McLinn, Manager of Technical Services, The

Sierra Group, Santa Barbara, Calif.

Merrill Butler, Member of Executive Committee,

and Alan R. Trellis, Technical Services Division,

National Association of Home Builders, Washington, 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 and

Mental Health Administration, Department of

HEW, 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 Service, 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, San

ment, 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 AutoRichard 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 Systems

Research Division, Defense Civil Preparedness

Agency, Washington, D.C.

Rolf Jensen, Professor and Chairman, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Ill.

Ambrose B. Kelly, Retired General Counsel, Factory Mutual Insurance System, Providence, R-1.

Robert E. May, Illinois State Fire Marshal, Division 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 UniDepartment, New York, N.Y. versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.

Leslie Fisher, Director, Burns Prevention Program, William Christian, Consulting Engineer, UnderBurns Care Institute, Albany, N.Y. writers’ Laboratories, Inc., Northbrook, III.

Howard Boyd, Metropolitan Fire Marshal, Nash- Robert E. Duke, Chicago Chapter of the Society

ville, Tenn. of Fire Protection Engineers.

OCTOBER 5, 1972

W. G. Schultz, CPCU, Vice President, Engineering Stanley Emery, Inspector, State Fire Marshal’s OfCommunications 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 SoRalf 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 of

ment of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Regional Community Colleges, Boston, hlass.

OEce of the Fire Marshal, Baltimore, Md.

AMERICA BURNING 165
APPENDIX III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contributing Agencies and Organizations

Office of Management and Budget

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of Transportation

General Services Administration

National Academy of Sciences

Boston, Massachusetts, Fire Department

Chicago, Illinois, Fire Department

Cincinnati, Ohio, Fire Department

Dallas, Texas, Fire Department

Denver, Colorado, Fire Department

Huntington Beach, California, Fire Department

Independence, Missouri, Fire Department

Los Angeles City, California, Fire Department

Los Angeles County, California, Fire Department

Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, Fire Department

Miami, Florida, Fire Department

Mountain View, California, Fire Department

New York City, New York, Fire Department

San Francisco, California, Fire Department

Santa Ana, California, Fire Department

Sarasota, Florida, Fire Department

Seattle, Washington, Fire Department

Silver Spring, Maryland, Fire Department

Washington, D.C., Fire Department

American Forestry Association

American Iron and Steel Institute

Factory Mutual System

Insurance Services Office

International Association of Black Professional Fire

Fighters

International Association of Fire Chiefs

International Association of Fire Fighters

International City Management Association

Model Building Code Groups

American Insurance Association

Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc.

International Conference of Building Officials

Southern Buildings Code Congress

National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies

National League of Cities

166 APPENDIX III

New York City Rand Institute

Sierra Group

Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.

Tall Timbers Research Station

Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc.

University of Maryland

University of Michigan Burn Center

Urban Institute

Consultants

Howery, Baker, Simon and Murchison, Attorneys At

Law

National Fire Protection Association

Dr. Edwin G. Triner, Systems Management Analyst

David B. Gratz, Fire Management Associates, Inc.

Gordon F. Vickery, Retired Chief, Seattle Fire

Department

Gage-Babcock and Associates, Inc.

John Buck, editor

Judy Harkinson, photographs

Jerry Dadds, design

Centers for Study

Ambrose Kelly, Retired General Counsel, Factory

Mutual System

Prof. Irving Einhorn, University of Utah

Dr. R. B. Williamson, University of California,

Berkeley

Department Representatives

James Kerr-Department of Defense

Robert Novick-Department of Health, Education,

and Welfare

Willard R. Tikkala-Department of Agriculture

Quinton Wells-Department of Housing and Urban

Development

Dr. 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-Eli

Canter, Santa Rosa Medical Center. Page 48-

49-Richard Swanson, Black Star. Pages 56-57,

60-Wide World Photos. Pages 62, 70, 73-New

York Daily News. Pages 89, 90-UP1 Photos.

Page 116-Wide World Photos. Page 129-New

York Daily News. Page 146-New York Times,
APPENDIX IV

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

FIRE PREVENTION AND CONTROL

CHAPTER 1

1 . . . . the Commission recommends that Congress establish a U.S. Fire Administration to provide

a national focus for the Nation’s fire problem and

to promote a comprehensive program with adequate

funding to reduce life and property loss from fire.

2 . . . * the Commission recommends that a national fire data system be established to provide a

continuing review and analysis of the entire fire

problem.

CHAPTER 2

3. The Commission recommends that Congress

enact legislation to make possible the attainment of

25 burn units and centers and 90 burn programs

within the next 10 years.

4. The Commission recommends that Congress,

in providing for new burn treatment facilities, make

adequate provision for the training and continuing

support of the specialists to staff these facilities.

Provision should also be made for special training

of those who provide emergency care for burn victims in general hospitals.

5. The Commission recommends that the National Institutes of Health greatly augment their

sponsorship of research on burns and burn treatment.

6. The Commission recommends that the National Institutes of Health administer and support a

systematic program of research concerning smoke

inhalation injuries.

CHAPTER 3

7. The Commission recommends that local governments make fire prevention at least equal to suppression in the planning of fire department priorities.

8. The Commission recommends that communities train and utilize women for fire service duties.

9. The Commission recommends that laws which

hamper cooperative arrangements among local fire

jurisdictions be changed to remove the restrictions.

10. The Commission recommends that every

local fire jurisdiction prepare a master plan designed to meet the community’s present and future

needs in fire protection, to serve as a basis for program budgeting, and to identify and implement the

optimum cost-benefit solutions in fire protection.

11. . . . the Commission recommends that Federal grants for equipment and training be available

only to those fire jurisdictions that operate from a

federally approved master plan for fire protection.

12. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration act as a coordinator

of studies of fire protection methods and assist local

jurisdictions in adapting findings to their fire protection planning.

CHAPTER 4

13. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration provide grants to

local fire jurisdictions for developing master plans

for fire protection. Further, the proposed U.S. Fire

Administration should provide technical advice and

qualified personnel to local fire jurisdictions to help

them develop master plans.

CHAPTER 5

14 . . . the Commission recommends that the

proposed U.S. Fire Administration sponsor research

in the following areas: productivity measure of fire

departments, lob analyses, firefighter injuries, and

fire prevention efforts.

15. . . the Commission urges the Federal research agencies, such as the National Science

Foundation and the National Bureau of Standards,

to sponsor research appropriate to their respective

missions within the areas of productivity of fire departments, causes of firefighter injuries, effectiveness

of fire prevention efforts, and the skills required to

perform various fire department functions.

16. The Commission recommends that the Nation’s fire departments recognize advanced and

specialized education and hire or promote persons

with experience at levels commensurate with their

skills.

17. The Commission recommends a program of

Federal financial assistance to local fire servircs to

upgrade their training.

18. In the administering of Federal funds for

training or other assistance to local fire departments,

the Commission recommends that eligibility be

limited to those departments that have adopted an

effective, affirmative action program related to the

employment and promotion of members of minority

groups.

19. The Commission recommends that fire departments, lacking emergency ambulance, paramedical.

and rescue services consider providing them, especially if they are located in communities where

these services are not adequately provided by other

agencies.

AMERICA BURNING 167
CHAPTER 6

20. . . . the Commission recommends the establishment of a National Fire Academy to provide

specialized training in areas important to the fire

services and to assist State and local jurisdictions in

their training programs.

21. The Commission recommends that the proposed National Fire Academy assume the role of

developing, gathering, and disseminating, to State

and local arson investigators, information on arson

incidents and on advanced methods of arson

investigations.

22. The Commission recommends that the National Fire Academy be organized as a division of

the proposed US. Fire Admmistration, which would

assume responsibility for deciding details of the

Academy’s structure and administration.

23. The Commission recommends that the full

cost of operating the proposed National Fire Academy and subsidizing the attendance of fire service

members be borne by the Federal Government.

CHAPTER 7

24. The Commission urges the National Science

Foundation, in its Experimental Research and Development Incentives Program, and the National

Bureau of Standards, in its Experimental Technology Incentives Program, to give high priority to the

needs of the fire services.

25. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration review current practices in terminology, symbols, and equipment descriptions, and seek to introduce standardization

where it is lacking.

26. The Commission urges rapid implementation

of a program to improve breathing apparatus systems and expansion of the program’s scope where

appropriate.

27. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration undertake a continuing study of equipment needs of the fire services,

monitor research and development in progress, encourage needed research and development, disseminate results, and provide grants to fire departments

for equipment procurement to stimulate innovation

in equipment desian.

28. . . . the Commission urges the Joint Council of National Fire Service Organizations to sponsor

a study to identify shortcomings of firefighting

equipment and the kinds of research, development,

or technology transfer that can overcome the

deficiencies.

CHAPTER 8

No recommendations.

CHAPTER 9

29. The Commission recommends that research

in the basic processes of ignition and combustion be

168 APPENDIX IV

strongly increased to provide a foundation for developing improved test methods.

30. This Commission recommends that the new

Consumer Product Safety Commission give a high

priority to the combustion hazards of materials in

their end use.

31. : . . the Commission recommends that the

present fuel load study sponsored by the General

Services Administration and conducted by the National Bureau of Standards be expanded to update

the technical study of occupancy fire loads.

32. The Commission recommends that flammability standards for fabrics be given high priority by

the Consumer Product Safety Commission,

33. The Commission recommends that all States

adopt the Model State Fireworks Law of the National Fire Protection Association, thus prohibiting

all fireworks except those for public displays.

34. The Commission recommends that the Department of Commerce be funded to provide grants

for studies of combustion dynamics and the means

of its control.

35. The Commission recommends that the National Bureau of Standards and the National

Institutes of Health cooperatively devise and implement a set of research objectives designed to provide combustion standards for materials to protect

human life.

CHAPTER 10

36. The Commission urges the National Bureau

of Standards to assess current progress in fire research and define the areas in need of additional

investigation. Further, the Bureau should recommend a program for translating research results

into a systematic body of engineering principles and,

ultimately, into guidelines useful to code writers and

building designers.

37. The Commission recommends that the National Bureau of Standards, in cooperation with the

National Fire Protection Association and other appropriate organizations, support research to develop

guidelines for a systems approach to fire safety in

all types of buildings.

38. . . . the Commission recommends that, in

all construction involving Federal money, awarding

of those funds be contingent upon the approval of

a fire safety systems analysis and a fire safety effectiveness statement.

39. This Commission urges the Consumer Product

Safety Commission to give high priority to matches,

cigarettes, heating appliances, and other consumer

products that are significant sources of burn injuries, particularly products for which industry

standards fail to give adequate protection.

40. The Commission recommends to schools giving degrees in architecture and engineering that

they include in their curricula at least one course

in fire safety. Further, we urge the American Institute of Architects, professional engineering soci-
eties, and State registration boards to implement

this recommendation.

41. The Commission urges the Society of Fire

Protection Engineers to draft model courses for

architects and engineers in the field of fire protection engineering.

42. The Commission recommends that the proposed National Fire Academy develop short courses

to educate practicing designers in the basics of

fire safety design.

CHAPTER 11

43. The Commission recommends that all local

governmental units in the United States have in

force an adequate building code and fire prevention code or adopt whichever they lack.

44. The Commission recommends that local governments provide the competent personnel, training programs for inspectors, and coordination

among the various departments involved to enforce effectively the local building and fire prevention codes. Representatives from the fire department should participate in revielving the fire safety

aspects of plans for new building construction and

alterations to old buildings.

45. The Commission recommends that, as the

model code of the International Conference of

Building Officials has already done, all model codes

specify at least a single-station early-warning detector oriented to protect sleeping areas in every

dwelling unit. Further, the model codes should

specify automatic fire extinguishing systems and

early-warning detectors for high-rise buildings and

for low-rise buildings in which many people

congregate.

CHAPTER 12

46. The Commission recommends that the National Transportation Safety Board expand its

efforts in issuance of reports on transportation accidents so that the information can be used to improve transportation fire safety.

47. The Commission recommends that the Department of Transportation work with interested

parties to develop a marking system, to be adopted

nationwide, for the purpose of identifying transportation hazards.

48. The Commission recommends that the proposed National Fire Academy disseminate to every

fire jurisdiction appropriate educational materials

on the problems of transporting hazardous materials.

49. The Commission recommends the extension

of the Chem-Tree system to provide ready access

by all fire departments and to include hazard control tactics.

50. . . . the Commission recommends that the

Department of the Treasury establish adequate

fire regulations, suitably enforced, for the transportation, storage, and transfer of hazardous materials

in international commerce.

51. The Commission recommends that the Department of Transportation set mandatory

standards that will provide fire safety in private

automobiles.

52. The Commission recommends that airport

authorities review their firefighting capabilities and,

where necessary, formulate appropriate capital improvement budgets to meet current recommended

aircraft rescue and firefighting practices.

53. The Commission recommends that the Department of Transportation undertake a detailed

review of the Coast Guard’s responsibilities, authority, and standards relating to marine fire safety.

54. The Commission recommends that the railroads begin a concerted effort to reduce rail-caused

fires along the Nation’s rail system.

55. . . . the Commission recommends that the

Urban Mass Transportation Administration require

explicit fire safety plans as a condition for all grants

for rapid transit systems.

CHAPTER 13

56. . , . the Commission recommends that rural

dwellers and others living at a distance from fire departments install early-warning detectors and

alarms to protect sleeping areas.

57. The Commission recommends that U.S. Department of Agriculture assistance to [community

fire protection facilities] projects be contingent upon

an approved master plan for fire protection for local

fire jurisdictions.

CHAPTER 14

58. . . . the Commission recommends that the

proposed U.S. Fire Administration join with the

Forest Service, U.S.D.A., in exploring means to

make fire safety education for forest and grassland

protection more effective.

59. The Commission recommends that the Council of State Governments undertake to develop

model State laws relating to fire protection in forests

and grasslands.

60. The Commission urges interested citizens and

conservation groups to examine fire laws and their

enforcement in their respective States and to press

for strict compliance.

61. The Commission recommends that the Forest

Service, U.S.D.A., develop the methodology to make

possible nationwide forecasting of fuel buildup as a

guide to priorities in wildland management.

62. The Commission supports the development

of a National Fire Weather Service in the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and urges

its acceleration.

CHAPTER 15

63. The Commission recommends that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare include in accreditation standards fire safety education in the schools throughout the school year. Only

schools presenting an effective fire safety education

AMERICA iURNING 169
program should be eligible for any Federal financial

assistance.

64. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration sponsor fire safety

education courses for educators to provide a teaching cadre for fire safety education.

65. The Commission recommends to the States

the inclusion of fire safety education in programs

educating future teachers and the requirement of

knowledge of fire safety as a prerequisite for teaching certification.

66. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration develop a program,

with adequate funding, to assist, augment, and

evaluate existing public and private fire safety education efforts.

67. . * . the Commission recommends that the

proposed U.S. Fire Administration, in conjunction

with the Advertising Council and the National

Fire Protection Association, sponsor an all-media

campaign of public service advertising designed to

promote public awareness of fire safety.

68. The Commission recommends that the proposed U.S. Fire Administration develop packets

of educational materials appropriate to each OCCUpational category that has special needs or opportunities in promoting fire safety.

CHAPTER 16

69. The Commission supports the Operation

EDITH (Exit Drills In The Home) plan and

recommends its acceptance and implementation

both individually and community-wide.

70. The Commission recommends that annual

home inspections be undertaken by every fire department in the Nation. Further, Federal financial

assistance to fire jurisdictions should be contingent

upon their implementation of effective home fire

inspection programs.

71. The Commission urges Americans to protect

themselves and their families by installing approved

early-warning fire detectors and alarms in their

homes.

72. , . . the Commission recommends that the

insurance industry develop incentives for policyholders to install approved early-warning fire detectors in their residences.

73. The Commission urges Congress to consider

amending the Internal Revenue Code to permit

reasonable deductions from income tax for the

cost of installing approved detection and alarm

systems in homes.

74. * . . the Commission recommends that the

proposed U.S. Fire Administration monitor the

progress of research and development on earlywarning detection systems in both industry and government and provide additional support for research

and development where it is needed.

75. The Commission recommends that the proposed US. Fire Administration support the develop170 APPENDIX IV

ment of the necessary technology for improved automatic extinguishing systems that would find ready

acceptance by Americans in all kinds of dwelling

units.

76. The Commission recommends that the National Fire Protection Association and the American

National Standards Institute jointly review the

Standard for Mobile Homes and seek to strengthen

it, particularly in such areas as interior finish materials and fire detection.

77. The Commission recommends that all

political jurisdictions require compliance with the

NFPA/ANSI standard for mobile homes together

with additional requirements for early-warning

fire detectors and improved fire resistance of

materials.

78. The Commission recommends that State and

local jurisdictions adopt the NFPA Standard on

Mobile Home Parks as a minimum mode of protection for the residents of these parks.

CHAPTER 17

79. The Commission strongly endorses the provisions of the Life Safety Code which require specific

construction features, exit facilities, and fire detection systems in child day care centers and recommends that they be adopted and enforced immediately by all the States as a minimum requirement

for licensing of such facilities.

80. The Commission recommends that earlywarning detectors and total automatic sprinkler

protection or other suitable automatic extinguishing systems be required in all facilities for the care

and housing of the elderly.

81. The Commission recommends to Federal

agencies and the States that they establish mechanisms for annual review and rapid upgrading of

their fire safety requirements for facilities for the

aged and infirm, to a level no less stringent than

the current NFPA Life Safety Code.

82. The Commission recommends that the special

needs of the physically handicapped and elderly in

institutions, special housing, and public buildings ,be

incorporated into all fire safety standards and codes.

83. The Commission recommends that the States

provide for periodic inspection of facilities for the

aged and infirm, either by the State’s fire marshal’s

office or by local fire departments, and also require

approval of plans for new facilities and inspection

by a designated authority during and after construction.

84. The Commission recommends that the National Bureau of Standards develop standards for

the flammability of fabric materials commonly used

in nursing homes with a view to providing the highest level of fire resistance compatible with the stateof-the-art and reasonable costs.

85. The Commission recommends that political

subdivisions regulate the location of nursing homes

and housing for the elderly and require that fire
alarm systems be tied directly and automatically to

the local fire department.

CHAPTER 18

86. The Commission recommends that the Federal Government retain and strengthen its programs

of fire research for which no non-governmental alternatives exist.

87. . . . the Commission recommends that the

Federal budget for research connected with fire be

increased by $26 million.

88. . . . the Commission recommends that associations of material and product manufacturers

encourage their member companies to sponsor research directed toward improving the fire safety of

the built environment.

CHAPTER 19

89. . . . the Commission recommends that the

proposed U.S. Fire Administration be located in

the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

90. The Commission recommends that Federal

assistance in support of State and local fire service

programs be limited to those jurisdictions complying with the National Fire Data System reporting

requirements.

CHAPTER 20

No recommendations.

AMERICA BURNING 171
APPENDIX V

1971 FIRE LOSS DATA

Category

Life loss Property loss Fires

Number Percent Million Percent Number Percent

of 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 VI

MASTER PLAN FOR

Fire Protection Section

FIRE PROTECTION, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA

The community fire protection system includes public and private organizations, personnel, facilities,

equipment, laws and policy, all coordinated for life

safety and property protection from fire loss through

control, detection and suppression of fire danger.

The objective of the community fire protection system is to provide adequate level of fire protection at

a reasonable community cost. Adequate fire protection for Mountain View is that specific combination

of public and private resources which provide the

services and acceptable risks which meet the needs

of this community.

Means of Fire Protection

Community fire “protection” is a combination of

two factors-Public Sector Protection and Private

Sector Protection.

Public Sector Fire Protection consists of the manpower and facilities supplied by the city. Traditionally, the design of the system has reacted to

problems rather than planning to manage problems. To be effective, the system must be designed

in light of the community’s goals and capablhties.

In addition to the job of fire suppression, public

protection, to be most effective, must include

structural design review, control of hazardous contents, fire code enforcement, continuing inspection, and coordination of building, planning, law

enforcement and public works activities as they

relate to fire protection.

Private Sector Fire Protection consists of fire resistive design of structures and materials, as well as

fire extinguishing, warning, and detection systems.

Fire resistive structural elements limit the size of

the fire problem by dividing a structure into manageable fire areas. Through automatic detection

and suppression, built-in protection is intended to

limit the scope of the anticipated problem to that

which is manageable.

Fire insurance also serves an indirect function in

fire protection by compensation for losses. In addition, the fire insurance industry evaluates the capabilities of cities to cope with conflagrations. The

Insurance Services Office maintains a 1 to 10 grading system and establishes a basic insurance rate for

each city. In a Class 1 city fire insurance costs less

than in a Class 10 city. Traditionally, cities have used

this grading as the basis of their fire protection system design. Although the Grading Schedule provides adequate guidelines for conflagration control,

it is not intended to meet the total fire protection

planning needs of cities, since individual community

goals and capabilities are not considered. The City

of Mountain View will consider fire insurance rates

and upgrading as one of the economic benefits resulting from adequate fire protection.

Fire Losses and Costs

The number of fire department responses in Mountain View has grown in direct proportion to the

population with approximately 22 emergency calls

per thousand persons over the past 10 years. Increased concentration of people and goods, resulting

from urbanization, has increased fire loss potential

and reduced the effectiveness of traditional public

fire protection methods. As concentration increases,

building design, on-site automatic detection equipment, and private automatic and manual suppression facilities are of greater importance to reduce

fire risk.

Along with increased fire losses, community costs,

which include equipment and manpower, have also

risen. With traditional community fire system designs, this trend of public cost can be expected to

continue to increase in accord with urbanization.

Only by planning for both public and private fire

control responsibility can this trend be changed. In

this plan, fire loss management is stressed as opposed

to systems which merely react to new problems by

adding more firefighting resources.

Reflex Time

The concept of reflex time is useful in understanding the public and private sector responsibilities with

respect to fire risks. Reflex time is the total time

which elapses between fire ignition and eventual

extinguishment, and is illustrated on the next page.

Upon ignition, fire intensity grows rapidly. While

the rate of growth varies with the materials and conditions, a dangerous fire will climb quickly to a point

referred to as “flashover,” the critical point for life

safety and fire control. One of the primary objectives

of adequate fire protection is to control fires prior

to flashover. Fire department response time can be

established by the system design. Historically, the

time that elapses between ignition and alarm has

been uncontrolled and fire extinguishment commenced only after arrival of firefighting forces. With

automatic detection, a speedy alarm can be given

and response time of firefighting forces can be reduced. With automatic suppression, fire danger can

be controlled prior to flashover, and frequently prior

to the arrival of firefighting forces.

AMERICA BURNING I73
THE COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION

PLAN

The plan which emerges involves a combination of

public and private responsibilities. The city shall establish a “normal firefighting capability” by building a fire protection force and providing equipment

to cope with an anticipated fire risk. Standards will

be set to define the level of public fire protection

which is adequate to meet the normal needs at a

reasonable community cost. Above that anticipated

level of fire risk, built-in protection will be provided

by the private sector. The community fire protection

system shall include necessary public ordinances,

codes, structural design review, and code enforcement procedures. In addition, inspection and maintenance programs are required to assure the reliability of built-in protection. Fires which exceed anticipated severity will require the implementation of

emergency operations pians which include mutual

aid with neighboring cities,

There is an insurance rating that is optimal for

this community at any point in time. The total community cost of changing the rating will govern the

decision to change. In 1972 the Class 4 rating is optimum; however, the fire insurance rating shall receive continual evaluation and changes may be

sought to improve community benefits.

The figure on page 175 depicts the locations

and fire prevention service areas for the City of

174 APPENDIX VI

Mountain View fire stations, needed at full development. Distributed as shown, the stations provide a

first response and backup capability for fire suppression and rescue. Fire stations in Palo Alto and Los

Altos have also been shown, indicating the areas that

may be served by mutual response agreements.

These fire stations are highly visible community

facilities which not only provide a base for firefighting and prevention but also provide general community information and services.

The proposed plan is a balance of fire codes, fire

protection personnel, and capital improvements.

Under this plan, it is anticipated that the fire department resources needed at full development will be

five engine companies, two truck companies, one

rescue company and a battalion chief. A Fire Prevention Bureau, Communications Division, Training Divisions, and administrative staff are necessary

to provide specialized services to the community

and the department personnel.

Fire Station Locations

Fire stations provide many direct services within

their assigned areas in addition to firefighting functions. Among these are fire prevention and hazard

control programs; fire safety education; and rescue,

first aid and resuscitation service. Fire stations also

provide communications and a service point between

city government and the community and, through
AMERICA BURNING 175
their strategic locations, they provide the quickest

feasible response to citizen requests for service.

Headquarters Fire Station at Villa and Franklin houses the administrative offices, the Communications Division and the Fire Prevention Bureau. The firefighting resources are: one engine

company, one truck company, a rescue company

and battalion chief. An expanded facility will be

developed when funds are available.

Station 2 at the intersection of Grant and

Cuesta houses one engine company and one reserve engine.

Station 3 at the intersection of Rengstorff and

Montecito houses one engine company and one

reserve hose wagon.

Station 4 on Whisman Road also includes the

training facility and the city emergency operations

center. This station houses an engine company and

a reserve engine and reserve truck.

Station 5. Property for this future station 5

has been purchased at Charleston and Stierlin

Roads. The construction of this station is related

to the rate of development of the area north of

Bayshore Freeway.

The service areas extend beyond the city limits

to include areas of mutual response with adjoining

communities of Palo Alto and Los Altos. Fire stations are highly visible community facilities and shall

represent the city within the neighborhoods as well

as provide the base for fire services.

In order to implement the plan, the following

programs shall be pursued :

1. Fire Suppression. Effective firefighting requires the training and maintenance of a wide

variety of manpower skills combined into an

effective team. A high level of efficiency is essentials to the safety of the firefighter. Also essential are the facilities and apparatus necessary for use by the firefighters.

2. Life Safety/Paramedical Services. The fire

system shall have a rescue capability for emergencies. This capability shall include first aid,

resuscitation, cardio-pulmonary resuscitation,

and coordination of command at catastrophic

medical incidents.

3. Fire Prevention. The fire system shall include

building design and construction plan review,

built-in private fire equipment and building

inspection, fire code enforcement, fire cause

investigation, fire hazard control and fire code

updating, in order to provide the required fire

protection reliability of built-in protection. The

fire system shall provide education in fire

safety, fire protection consultation, home safety

programs, and first aid training for the public.

The bulk of the firefighter’s non-emergency

time will be devoted to fire prevention activities. To assure the reliability of built-in fire

protection, a major commitment of fire department personnel for inspection is necessary.

4. Structural Rehabilitation. In coordination

with other city departments, the fire department shall work to abate serious hazards

to health and safety caused by deteriorated

structures.

5. Regional Coordination. The capability to

cope effectively and rapidly with major emergency incidents requires close coordination with

and use of resources of neighboring jurisdictions. This includes sharing capabilities, facilities and equipment, standardization, operational coordination communications, and logistical support.

6. Data Development. In order to better design the system (and measure results), adequate base data and feedback on fire danger,

building design and operation, fire cause, and

fire prevention results are necessary. Emergency operations require an extensive “on line”

data capability to enact efficient and safe

control methods for fire and/or hazardous

materials incidents.

176 APPENDIX VI
APPENDIX VII

ESTIMATE U.S. FIRE RESEARCH FUNDS

Sponsor Program area

Funds

(thousand)

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1973-O-495-792

AMERICA BURNING 177