Gap and Statistical Analysis on Housing Sprinkler Systems

on Housing Sprinkler Systems December 2010

on Housing Sprinkler Systems Prepared for: National Research Council of Canada (NRC) Institute for Research in Construction Canadian Codes Centre Prepared by: 1580 Kingston Road Toronto Ontario M1N 1S2 Phone: (416) 699 5645 Fax: (416) 699 2252 economics@altusgroup.com altusgroup.com December 9, 2010

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY was retained to provide a gap and statistical analysis on single family housing automatic fire sprinkler systems on behalf of National Research Council of Canada (NRC). Automatic fire sprinkler systems built into buildings are said to provide a superior response to fire situations. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are mandatory across a wide array of building types within the National Building Code of Canada but these do not include single family homes. Single family homes (single detached, semi detached dwellings and row housing) can be subject to mandatory automatic fire sprinkler system requirements in some municipalities, but these local policies remain rare. In both Canada and the U.S. there are increasing pressures to introduce requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems in new single family construction. In recent years a large body of technical, statistical and economic evidence has emerged that aims to illustrate the degree of effectiveness of these policies. The conclusiveness of these studies varies considerably. The number of concurrent measures and policies introduced in recent decades confounds the study of the effectiveness of a measure such as mandatory automatic fire sprinkler systems. These have also had the effect of reducing the number of fires, the extent of fire damage and the number of fire related deaths and injuries associated with single family house fires. Literature and Statistical Gaps Although there have been an extensive number of studies on the home automatic fire sprinkler system, research gaps in several areas still exist. Future studies could help fill these research gaps and assist regulators on whether to implement a mandatory requirement for automatic fire sprinkler installation in residential structures. These research areas include: Technical studies on the performance of automatic fire sprinkler systems in Canada, especially the performance in single family homes under extremely cold weather; Studies on the effectiveness of automatic fire sprinkler systems using identical residential structures, such as controlled experimental studies, on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page i

comparing the impact of automatic fire sprinklers on identical residential structures at a research facility; Cost benefit studies that are more conclusive on various costs of the automatic fire sprinkler system, including water damage cost from automatic fire sprinkler failure incidents. To actually estimate the benefits of the automatic fire sprinkler system, researchers should compare homes with similar structures and minimize the differences between homes with automatic fire sprinklers and the ones without; and Feasibility studies on establishing a national fire incident reporting system in Canada that is similar to the NFIRS in the United States. The Canadian Fire Experience The Canadian fire experience has been characterized by a steady decline in the average number of fires over the 1984 2008 period. Despite the population increase (and household increase) over this period, the number of fires per capita has also been falling. The experience in fires in one and two family dwellings has shown a similar pattern of declining numbers and a falling per capita rate over the study period. The number of injuries and the per capita rate of injuries in fires in residential structures have fallen over the study period, except for an increase in both over the 1989 1993 period; and The absolute number of deaths and the per capita death rate in fires has also declined over the study period. Fire Losses and Casualties Aggregate Findings In the study areas considered, the data show that the presence of automatic fire sprinkler systems greatly reduce injuries. However, fire losses appear to be relatively unchanged with the presence of smoke/heat alarms, and noticeably higher with the presence of automatic fire sprinkler systems. Finally, only two deaths have been reported in homes with automatic fire sprinklers (although the resultant death rate calculates higher). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page ii

Cost Benefit of Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Ordinance The findings from the statistical analysis show that with the mandatory implementation of automatic sprinkler systems in all new single family homes in Canada, there is likely to be a reduction in the amount of property damage and the number of injuries related to fire situations. The evidence is less conclusive on the matter of whether sprinkler systems would lead to a reduction in the number of deaths. There are considerable costs involved in installing, maintaining and related to failure of automatic sprinkler systems, and a mandate to install automatic sprinkler systems in all homes would impose these costs onto the buyers of new homes. Comparing these costs to the illustrated benefits in terms of injuries, shows that over the first 20 years of a nation wide automatic sprinkler system mandate for single family homes, the cost per injury avoided is some $2.9 million. Due to the ambiguity of the statistical analysis with respect to deaths, it is hard to assign a cost per death avoided (the statistical analysis actually pointed to a potential increase in deaths related to sprinklers in single family homes). However, even if we assume absolute effectiveness of sprinklers that is they would be effective in stopping all deaths in fire situations in single family homes built after 2010 the cost per death avoided would be in the order of $29 million. If a more likely scenario is considered (sprinklers leading to a 10% reduction in deaths), then the costs would rise to the order of $290 million per death avoided. These costs appear to be well in excess of the typical value of statistical life considered typical for regulatory measures. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1 INTRODUCTION...1 1.1 Background... 1 1.2 Structure of the Report... 1 1.3 Caveat... 2 2 BACKGROUND...3 2.1 The Model National Building Code... 3 2.2 Fire Deaths in Canada Causes and Statistical History... 4 2.3 Fire Detection Devices... 5 2.4 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems... 6 2.5 Estimated Fire Losses... 6 2.6 Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Costs... 7 3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND GAP ANALYSIS...10 3.1 Studies Focused on Technologies...10 3.2 Studies Focused on Effectiveness...11 3.3 Studies Focused on Cost Benefit...14 3.4 State of Fire Related Statistics in Canada and the United States...18 3.5 Literature and Statistical Gaps...19 4 CANADIAN FIRE EXPERIENCE...21 4.1 Historic Fire Incidents...21 4.2 Historic Fire Injuries...22 4.3 Historic Fire Deaths...25 4.4 Detectors...26 4.5 Conclusions...26 5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS...27 5.1 Methodology...27 5.2 Fire Database...28 5.3 Pairwise Statistical Analysis...30 5.4 Aggregate Findings...43 on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page iv

6 COST BENEFIT OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ORDINANCE...47 6.1 Scenario for Single Family Housing Starts in Canada by Five Year Period to 2031...47 6.2 Scenario for Single Family House Fires in Canada by Five Year Period to 2031...48 6.3 Cost of Installation in 100% of Single Family Housing Starts in Canada, by Five Year Period, from 2011 2031...49 6.4 Value of Gap in Injuries in Terms of Costs of Automatic fire sprinklers...51 6.5 Value of Gap in Deaths in Terms of Costs of Automatic fire sprinklers...52 6.6 Conclusion...54 APPENDIX A FIRE DATA SOURCES APPENDIX B CANADIAN TREND DATA APPENDIX C PAIRWISE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SUBJECT AND COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS APPENDIX D BUILDING FIRE STATISTICS FOR SUBJECT & COMPARATOR JURISDICTIONS APPENDIX E COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS APPENDIX F BIBLIOGRAPHY on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page v

1 INTRODUCTION was retained to provide a gap and statistical analysis on single family housing automatic fire sprinkler systems on behalf of National Research Council of Canada (NRC). 1.1 BACKGROUND Automatic fire sprinkler systems built into buildings are said to provide a superior response to fire situations. Automatic fire sprinkler systems are mandatory across a wide array of building types within the National Building Code of Canada but these do not include single family homes. Single family homes (single detached, semi detached dwellings and row housing) can be subject to mandatory automatic fire sprinkler system requirements in some municipalities, but these local policies remain rare. In both Canada and the U.S. there are increasing efforts to introduce requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems in new single family construction. In recent years a large body of technical, statistical and economic evidence has emerged that aims to illustrate the degree of effectiveness of these policies. The conclusiveness of these studies varies considerably. Studying the effectiveness of a measure such as mandatory automatic fire sprinkler systems is confounded by the number of concurrent measures and policies introduced and proliferating in recent decades. These other concurrent measures have also had the effect of reducing the number of fires, the extent of fire damage and the number of fire related deaths and injuries associated with single family house fires. 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT This report contains a number of chapters: Chapter 2 covers the literature review undertaken and the gap analysis. Chapter 3 presents fire statistics for Canada. Chapter 4 examines the effectiveness of automatic fire sprinkler systems in reducing casualties (injuries and deaths) and the cost of damages in fires. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 1

Chapter 5 Canadian forecasts Chapter 6 forecast of fire statistics for the study areas In addition, there are 6 Appendices: Appendix A contains a description of the various fire data sources; Appendix B includes Canadian annual trend data; Appendix C show the background calculations and findings from the pairwise statistical analysis of subject and comparator jurisdictions; Appendix D contains detailed building fire statistics for the subject and comparator jurisdictions, in annual format; Appendix E shows the detailed calculations and findings from the cost benefit analysis; and Appendix F includes the bibliography for the literature review. 1.3 CAVEAT This analysis has been prepared on the basis of the information and assumptions set forth in the text. However, it is not possible to fully document all factors or account for all the changes that may occur in the future. This report relies on information from a variety of secondary sources. While every effort is made to ensure the accuracy of the data, we cannot guarantee the complete accuracy of the information used in this report from these secondary sources. This report has been prepared solely for the purposes outlined herein and is not to be relied upon or used for any other purposes or by any other party without the prior written authorization of. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 2

2 BACKGROUND Public safety has always been the top priority of the government. To minimize death from fire incidents, the government introduced various fire prevention and protection measures in the model building and fire codes. This section provides background information related to the national building code system in Canada, fire incidents and fire mortality in Canada, especially as it relates to the use of smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinkler systems. 2.1 THE MODEL NATIONAL BUILDING CODE The National Building Code of Canada 2005, together with the National Plumbing Code of Canada 2005 and the National Fire Code of Canada 2005, is an objective based National Model Code that can be adopted by provincial and territorial governments. In Canada, provincial and territorial governments have the authority to enact legislation that regulates building design and construction within their jurisdictions. This legislation may include the adoption of the National Building Code (NBC) without change or with modifications to suit local needs, and the enactment of other laws and regulations regarding building design and construction, including the requirements for professional involvement (Preface, 2005 NBC). In addition, regulating buildings was historically the responsibility of municipalities. Today, Montreal and Vancouver retain this right in their charter. The National Building Code (NBC) sets out technical provisions for the design and construction of new buildings. It also applies to the alteration, change of use and demolition of existing buildings. The NBC establishes provisions to address the following four objectives, which are fully described in Division A of the Code: Safety; Health; Accessibility for persons with disabilities; and Fire and structural protection of buildings (National Building Code, Preface, 2005) on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 3

2.2 FIRE DEATHS IN CANADA CAUSES AND STATISTICAL HISTORY According to Statistics Canada s Vital Statistics Death Database, on average, structure fire incidents were responsible for some 176 deaths per year in Canada between 2000 and 2006 (Figure 1). This represents about 1.3% of the total accidental deaths in Canada and this ratio has been relatively stable over the period of 2000 2006. Figure 1 Death from Structure Fire Incidents, Canada, 2000-2006 Persons 280 240 200 160 120 80 40 Number of Fire-Related Deaths % of Total Accidental Deaths Percent 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 0.0 Source: based on data from Statistics Canada Most victims of fire incidents die from smoke or toxic gases (i.e. smoke inhalation) created by the fire rather than from burns. Children and seniors are at the greatest risk of death during a fire incident. Smoking is the leading cause of fire related deaths and cooking is the primary cause of residential fires (CDC, Website). In 2002, residential fires represented some 41% of all the fires in Canada and accounted for about 82% of fire fatalities 1 (Tracey, 2007). To reduce the death toll from residential fire incidents, the federal and provincial governments introduced various measures in building codes. 1 The author of the report does not specifically define what types of construction are encompassed in the use of the terms residential or all. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 4

2.3 FIRE DETECTION DEVICES The smoke alarm is one of the most effective and low cost technologies that can save lives. Alarms alert people in the home to the presence of smoke and fire. This provides additional time for people to escape. The federal and provincial governments first started to require smoke alarms in new buildings around 1980 and in existing buildings during the mid 1980s (CMHC, 2005). Over the years, provincial regulators expanded the scope for smoke alarm ordinances. For example: New Brunswick first required smoke alarms to be installed in every bedroom on or near the ceiling of multi unit residential buildings and institutional buildings in 1982; In 1991, Newfoundland and Labrador introduced the Fire Prevention and Smoke and Fire Alarm Regulations that required smoke alarms to be installed in all new dwelling units; As of January 2006, Regina required all rental units to have hard wired smoke alarms installed, and the smoke alarms should be tested every 6 months; Effective March 1, 2006, it is the law for all Ontario homes to have a working smoke alarm on every storey and outside all sleeping areas; Although smoke alarm requirements were introduced into the British Columbia Building Code in 1979, it did not require smoke alarms in all existing dwelling units such as private homes until May 1, 2010. Owners of private dwelling units built before March 31, 1979 are now also required to have smoke alarms installed; In Alberta, under the provincial Fire code, all dwelling units must have a smoke alarm installed, whether new construction or old; homes constructed after 1997 are required to have at least one alarm on each storey, whereas homes constructed prior to 1997 only require one alarm (additional alarms may be required for larger or multi level dwellings); and Nova Scotia does not have provincial legislation concerning smoke alarms. However, the Regional Municipality of Halifax has a by law that states that every residential occupancy shall be equipped with a smoke alarm. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 5

2.4 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS An automatic fire sprinkler system is a fire protection measure consisting of a water supply system, a water distribution piping system, and fire sprinkler heads, which are automatically activated by extreme heat. The National Building Code was amended in 1995 to require automatic fire sprinklers in large residential buildings. Since then, many provinces followed the lead and amended their building code accordingly (MMAF, 2008). Ontario required automatic fire sprinklers in large residential buildings effective on April 1, 2010. All Canadian provinces require the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in newly built nursing homes. Nova Scotia was the first to adopt this measure in 1976. The rest of the country adopted the requirement in the 1990s (CBC Marketplace). Some Canadian municipalities, mainly located in British Columbia, have adopted the automatic fire sprinkler ordinance for single family housing, including: Vancouver: ordinance adopted in 1990; Port Coquitlam: ordinance adopted in 1999; District of Maple Ridge: ordinance adopted in 2003; and Chilliwack: ordinance adopted in 2007. 2.5 ESTIMATED FIRE LOSSES Structure fires not only cost lives, but also cause monetary loss. Sometimes it is hard to estimate the true damage caused by a structure fire. Under the National Fire Incident Reporting System 5.0 in the U.S., the value loss is defined as: Rough estimation of the total loss to the structure and contents, in terms of the cost of replacement in like kind and quantity. This estimation of the fire loss includes contents damaged by fire, smoke, water, and overhaul. This does not include indirect loss, such as business interruption (FEMA, 2008). As the definition indicates, the dollar loss is just the rough estimation provided, typically at the site of the incident, from fire department officials. The true cost of a residential fire could be much higher than the fire department estimates. More accurate damage estimates could be compiled on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 6

from insurance claim data. However, these data tend not to be available for analytical use due to privacy issues. 2.6 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM COSTS The main concern about automatic fire sprinkler mandates in housing is the system installation costs to new home buyers, and the resulting effects on housing affordability. Various studies from both the U.S. and Canada have investigated this issue over the years and provide some guidance (Figure 2). There are a wide range of estimates for the installation cost as per square foot: The cost estimate from the U.S. ranges from $0.65 USD per sq. ft up to $1.60 USD per sq. ft. depending on the housing type, automatic fire sprinkler system design, materials used, and local building codes; In Canada, the average cost ranges from $1.43 CAD to $2.37 CAD depending on pipe materials (plastics vs. copper) and location (urban vs. rural). The overall average is approximately $1.70 CAD; Annual maintenance costs are also a consideration. CMHC estimates homeowners face $20 CAD to $35 CAD per year in maintenance costs; and Evidence from the literature shows that aside from the differences in local building codes and fees, the regional differences in automatic fire sprinkler installation costs are limited. The main determinant factors of automatic fire sprinkler costs are the system design and type of materials used. Over time, one should expect the installation cost to gradually decline, partially due to innovation and improved installation efficiencies/economies. The experience in Scottsdale, Arizona suggests that installation costs of automatic fire sprinkler systems for production homes declined from $1.14 USD per sq. ft. in 1986 to $0.59 USD in 1996 (Rural/Metro Fire Department, 1997). The consistent reduction in the installation price of residential automatic fire sprinkler systems in Scottsdale is related to (Rural/Metro Fire Department, 1997): The increased size of the market resulting from the mandatory requirement; Established standards are identified for all builders; on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 7

Increased competition for the available business; Better availability and quality of different materials (i.e. CPVC versus steel); and An increase in the efficiency of plumbing contractors who install the systems, resulting in better and quicker installations. By contrast, the CMHC studies show there to be little change in automatic fire sprinkler system cost in Canada between 1998 and 2005 (CMHC, April 2005). This might be because there are only a limited number of singlefamily homes installing automatic fire sprinklers in Canada, resulting in the lack of an economy of scale. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 8

Figure 2 Sprinkler Cost Estimate from Literature Title Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Author Year Single Detached Semi-Detached Townhouse New port Partners for the Fire Protection Research Foundation 2008 The average cost of installing sprinkler is $1.60 USD per sprinklered sq. ft. and $1.49 USD w hen accounting for any available credits. Maintenance Cost Variation by Region Variables Influence the Cost Sprinkler System Requirements and Extent of Coverage Type of Pipe Used Water Source Permit and Inspection Fees System Design Type (Multi-purpose systems are generally cheaper than standalone ones) Type of Foundation Economic Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems 1 Hayden Brow n, funded by United States Fire Administration 2005 $0.62 USD per sq. ft. for a tw o-storey colonial house $0.84 USD per sq. ft. for a threestorey tow nhouse $0.71 USD per sq. ft. for a singlestorey ranch Annual inspection cost: $100 USD or $200 USD Labour is part of the estimated costs, how ever, it is kept at a Sprinkler System Design constant rate. It assumes that Housing Type the installation requires a 2- Mark-ups on materials person crew, 13 hours of w ork A 15 Year Update on the Impact and Effectiveness of the Scottsdale Sprinkler Ordinance 2 Jim Ford, Assistant Chief / Fire Marshal Scottsdale The installation cost averages $0.65 USD per sq. ft. for typical homes. Cost Study of Sprinkler Installations J.C.Weibe for Alberta Municipal Affairs 1989 For a 1,940 sq. ft. side-split home in an urban location, cost is $1.43 CAD per sq. ft (plastic) and $2.37 CAD (copper). The cost in rural locations w ould be $2.47 CAD per sq. ft (plastic) and $3.67 CAD (copper). Costs and Benefits of Installing Fire Sprinklers in Houses 3 CMHC 1990 Typical installation costs of sprinklers averaged $4,750 CAD per housing unit. $35 CAD per year The costs in rural areas are generally higher than in urban Type of Pipe Used areas due to the w ater source. Location - Urban vs. Rural Costs and Benefits to Municipalities of Mandatory Residential Fire Sprinklers CMHC 1998 Typical installation costs of sprinklers averaged $1.70 CAD per sq. ft. $200 CAD per home every 10 years Fire Experience, Smoke Alarms and Sprinklers in Canada Houses: CMHC Research to 2005 3 CMHC 2005 Typical installation costs of sprinklers averaged $1.75 CAD per sq. ft. Cost Benefit Analysis for Residential Sprinklers in Canada Sean A. Tracey prepared for NRC 2009 The average for the installation of a sprinkler system is estimated to be $3,500 CAD per system. The costs in rural areas w ill be greater than the average due to w ater supply issues, but these w ill be balanced against cost savings in urban areas. Note: 1 The costs for colonial, tow nhouse and ranch are based on the 50% mark-up on material scenario. Those numbers are also quoted in the Benefit-Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler System study. 2 The installation cost to average $0.55 USD and $0.75 USD per square foot for typical homes. 3 Based on the midpoint of the estimated cost range betw een $2,800 CAD and $6,700 CAD for a typical home. 4 Based on the midpoint of the estimated cost range betw een $3,000 CAD and $4,000 CAD for a 2,000 sq. ft. sprinklered area. Source: on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 8

2.6.1 Estimated 2011 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Costs in Canada Based on the range of cost data in the studies, and considering the data in the framework of 2011 based Canadian dollars (i.e. values from the literature both converted for exchange rate where applicable and inflated to 2011$ values 2, Figure 3 presents a summary of the range of per square foot costs as assessed in the literature. Based on this summary, a typical value of about $2 per sq. ft. appears to be a reasonable summary of the literature. Figure 3 Automatic Fire Sprinkler Cost Estimates from the Literature 2011 $CAD per sq. ft. 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.0 2.2 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.0 0.5 1.2 1.0 0.0 A B C D E F G Source: A - Cost Study of Sprinkler Installations; B - Costs and Benefits to Municipalities of Mandatory Residential Fire Sprinklers; C - Fire Experience, Smoke Alarms and Sprinklers in Canada Houses: CMHC Research to 2005; D - Cost Benefit Analysis for Residential Sprinklers in Canada; E - Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment; F - A 15 Year Update on the Impact and Effectiveness of the Scottsdale Sprinkler Ordinance; G - Economic Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems 2 Values from the literature were inflated to 2011$ by assuming that the annual increase in installation cost is approximately 2%. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 9

3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND GAP ANALYSIS This section entails a comprehensive review examining the existing body of literature, studies and statistics that relate to home automatic fire sprinkler systems, fire incidents, as well as fire related injury, loss of life and property losses both from within Canada and the United States. In addition, the literature review assesses obvious gaps in the body of literature that could be followed up in additional research by the National Research Council (NRC). There is a wide array of studies and reports related to fire statistics, fire prevention and extinguishing technologies, especially looking at residential automatic fire sprinkler systems. These studies could be broadly divided into four main categories: technologies, effectiveness, cost benefit and statistics. 3.1 STUDIES FOCUSED ON TECHNOLOGIES Studies on the technical aspect of residential fire incidents and the performance of automatic fire sprinkler systems are relatively comprehensive. Those studies are fairly straightforward. Research ranges from experimental fire design to building code standards that relate to the installation of the automatic fire sprinkler system. Some of the main findings from these studies include: The basement fire scenario, with an open basement doorway, was more severe than the fire scenario with a closed doorway to the structural integrity of unprotected floor assemblies and the life safety of occupants (NRC, 2008); The 1993 report of the Part 3 Joint Task Group on Automatic Sprinklers to the Standing Committee on Fire Protection and Occupancy recommends that changes should be made to the National Building Code to extend the use of automatic fire sprinkler systems in buildings regulated by the Code (NRC, 1993); NRC finds that the pipes and fittings of the automatic fire sprinkler system can withhold exposure to temperatures above the rated temperature of 93 C at 552 kpa for 140 s and can successfully control the fire, based on experiments at Kemano Village. Technical data obtained from this study can provide guidance for future studies with an increased fire challenge to automatic fire sprinkler systems (NRC, 2002); on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 10

A detailed U.S. study conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology on the performance of home smoke alarms concludes that smoke alarms (either the ionization type or the photoelectric type) consistently provide time for occupants to escape from most residential fires. The study credits the home smoke alarm as the greatest success story in fire safety in the last part of the 20 th century, because it alone represented a highly effective fire safety technology with leverage on most fire death problems that were widely adopted in a relatively short period (NIST, 2008); In a 1983 research note, the NRC analyzed the causes of automatic fire sprinkler system failure during a fire incident and concluded that most solutions to reduce failures and improve the reliability of automatic fire sprinkler systems could be easily accomplished in new buildings (NRC, 1983); and There is also research on automatic fire sprinkler sensitivity and response time, automatic fire sprinkler water distribution, multi purpose piping systems, residential water mist systems, etc. Although there have been comprehensive technical studies on the use of the residential automatic fire sprinkler system in the U.S., there is a lack of research on the performance of automatic fire sprinkler systems in Canada, especially the performance of single family automatic fire sprinkler systems under extremely cold conditions. A recent U.S. study quotes exposure to freezing conditions as one of the common factors causing automatic fire sprinkler systems to fail (NFPA, Jan. 2009). 3.2 STUDIES FOCUSED ON EFFECTIVENESS Studies on the effectiveness of the residential 3 automatic fire sprinkler system generally conclude that it is an effective fire extinguishing technology in reducing fire damages and saving lives during an incident. A comprehensive study of the use of the automatic fire sprinkler system in all types of structures in the U.S. concludes (NFPA, January 2009): Automatic fire sprinklers deploy in 95% of all reported structure fires large enough to activate automatic fire sprinklers and, when they 3 Generally single family. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 11

operate, are effective at suppressing the fire source 96% of the time, resulting in a combined performance rate of 91%; This combined performance rate is higher than for dry chemical systems (58%), carbon dioxide systems (84%) and foam systems (82%); In addition, the rate of property damage is reduced by 45% to 70% for most property uses; and When automatic fire sprinklers present in all types of structures (that are not under construction) fail to operate, the main reason is due to the shutoff of the system before the fire began (63% of failures), followed by lack of maintenance (14%) and inappropriateness of the system for the type of fire (11%) (Figure 4). Figure 4 Reasons Why Automatic Fire Sprinklers Failed to Operate, 2003-2006 System shut off before fire 63 Lack of maintenance 14 Inappropriate system for fire 11 Manual intervention defeated system 9 Damaged component 3 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Source: based on data from U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment, National Fire Protection Association, January 2009 A study, conducted by Building Research Establishment Ltd. in the U.K. on the effectiveness of the residential automatic fire sprinkler system, concludes the effectiveness of automatic fire sprinklers is more or less independent of property type, and lies in the following ranges 4 (Williams, 2004): Reduction in the number of deaths: 55% to 85%; 4 The study included single and multiple occupancy houses, flats and care homes as classification of residential fire types, and for the purposes of its cost benefit analysis sprinkler effectiveness was assumed to be independent of property type. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 12

Reduction in the number of injuries: 15% to 45%; Reduction in the number of rescues required: 20% to 50% (flats 40% to 65%); and Reduction in the average property damage: 35% to 65%. There are also similar studies in Canada, however they are generally not as comprehensive as studies in the U.S. and U.K., primarily due to data limitation. The NRC conducted an experimental study on the tradeoffs between mandatory automatic fire sprinkler protection and the construction of a new fire department in a new residential community (NRC, 1999). The result of the study shows that the provision of automatic fire sprinkler protection and existing fire department response time provide a level of fire protection that is better than in the case without automatic fire sprinkler protection but with a shorter fire department response time (i.e. with new fire stations). A study of Vancouver s 10 year fire statistics on residential 5 automatic fire sprinklers finds (HFSC presentation, 2000): No fire fatalities have occurred in a residential property protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system installed to NFPA 13D standards; Fire losses have decreased from over $30.8 million per year in 1990 to $15.4 million in 2000 a 50% reduction despite a 25% population growth; and Over the 10 year average, fire damage in a residential unit with an automatic fire sprinkler system was 13 times less than for an equivalent non sprinklered unit. However, there are weaknesses in these studies. Most of the studies are statistical analyses, such as the NFPA s Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment (January 2009) and UK Building Research Establishment Ltd. s Effectiveness of Sprinklers in Residential Premises (February 2004), that compare fire damages in homes equipped with automatic fire sprinklers to ones without sprinklers. A report on the fire incidents in New York State finds that (NYSBA, 2007): 5 Although there is mention of NFPA 13D installation standards, the study does not specifically define what types of dwellings are encompassed in the use of the term residential. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 13

Out of the sample homes having fatal fires, 86% were constructed prior to 1984, before New York introduced the mandate on smoke alarm installation in new homes; and There were 139 individuals who lost their lives in these fires, representing about 89% of the deaths included in the sample. Thus, the true effectiveness of the automatic fire sprinkler system is likely overstated. To avoid this problem, future research studies should compare fire damage statistics from similar residential structures and time periods. 3.3 STUDIES FOCUSED ON COST BENEFIT There have been several key cost benefit studies in the U.S. and Canada over the years regarding the installation of the automatic fire sprinkler system in residential structures. Some of them are more concerned with the cost of residential automatic fire sprinkler systems. For example: Economic Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (NIST, 2005), conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, compares life cycle costs of various multi purpose network and standalone automatic fire sprinkler systems in single family homes designed in compliance with NFPA 13D standards, and presents the least cost automatic fire sprinkler systems by house type at the end of the study; and Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment (FPRF, 2008), produced by the Fire Protection Research Foundation, studies the cost of installing residential automatic fire sprinkler systems in ten communities (9 in the U.S. and 1 in Canada), and finds that the cost of a sprinkler system to the homebuilder ranges from $0.38/sq. ft. to $3.66/sq. ft. In terms of absolute costs, the cost of automatic fire sprinkler installation to the homebuilder ranges from $2,386 to $16,061, depending on housing type and location. A number of studies directly compare the cost of installing automatic fire sprinklers in a single family home with the benefits. Examples of such studies in the U.S. include: on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 14

Benefit Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems (NIST, 2007): This study compares the installation cost of automatic fire sprinklers to its benefits, including fatalities and injuries averted, prevention of direct uninsured property losses and indirect costs in case of fire, and savings on home insurance; and Based on the calculation of the expected present values of net benefits, the study concludes that multi purpose network automatic fire sprinkler systems are economical and will generate $2,919 in net present value (in 2005 dollars) for a typical colonial style house, $3,099 for a townhouse, and $4,166 for a ranch style house; and Cost/Benefit to Society for Having Sprinklers in One and Two Family Dwellings A pessimistic Analysis (Isman, 2005): The research focuses on the net benefits of residential automatic fire sprinklers to society as a whole. The benefits of installing automatic fire sprinklers include: value of lives saved and injuries prevented, property saved, indirect savings, insurance savings, construction savings, savings from fire department on scene and income tax savings; Summing up those values results in the total savings from automatic fire sprinklers for society (based on the assumption that all new housing units will be equipped with automatic fire sprinklers). Deducting the total installation cost, the report presents the net benefit of automatic fire sprinkler to society; and The study estimates the cumulated net benefit for society to be $62.8 billion, fifty years after the mandate is implemented. A similar study for Canada was undertaken by Sean A. Tracey of the NFPA. The report shows that mandatory residential automatic fire sprinklers can be cost beneficial for Canada as a whole, with an estimated cumulated net benefit of some $590 million, thirty years after the mandate is implemented (Tracey, 2009). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 15

CMHC has also investigated the issue. There are two principal studies by the CMHC on this topic: Costs and Benefits of Installing Fire Sprinklers in Houses (CMHC, 1990): The report considers benefits as reductions in fatalities, injuries and associated costs, property losses, indirect costs, and the costs of fire service; It includes the cost of installation and maintenance in the total cost; The study concludes that the cost of saving one life would be at least $38 million from automatic fire sprinklers. This is much higher than other mandatory fire safety prevention methods such as smoke detectors; and Costs and Benefits to Municipalities of Mandatory Residential Fire Sprinklers (CMHC, 1998): The report examines the net fiscal effect of mandatory residential automatic fire sprinklers on five selected communities, that serve as benchmark cases for the rest of Canada; Although there are some fiscal benefits for municipalities primarily due to savings from the construction of new fire stations in new greenfield development areas that were otherwise required, these are offset by higher home construction and maintenance costs; A later update of the report finds that not requiring automatic fire sprinklers would save a minimum of $415 million in Manitoba and Ontario over a period of 20 years (CMHC, 2005). At the beginning of the 1990s, the Canadian government considered a mandatory automatic fire sprinkler ordinance for all new housing units. A cost benefit study was conducted by the Joint Task Group on Mandatory Installation of Sprinklers in Houses (NRC, 1990): The report is based on the model produced by the CMHC; on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 16

The study considers multiple values for various inputs, including the number of deaths per million houses, the death reduction rate, economic life of the automatic fire sprinkler system and automatic fire sprinkler cost, to create a range of values for the cost per life saved, cost to prevent injury and net cost to society to prevent property damage; and The members of the Joint Task Group concluded that, based on the model results, mandating the installation of automatic fire sprinklers in houses was not justified on an economic basis. Figure 5 Model Results from the Cost-Benefit Study Variable Name Cost to save a life ($million) Cost to prevent injury ($thousand) Net life cycle cost of installing sprinkler system ($) Net cost to society (dollar cost per dollar of property damage Source: CMHC Urban Rural Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 35 4 2 (1) 17 32 1,500 353 269 (496) 1,545 2,878 2,527 638 456 (1,257) 3,234 6,138 10 3 2 (3) 10 9 based on data from The Report of the Joint Task Group on Mandatory Installation of Sprinklers in Houses to the Standing Committees on Fire Protection, Housing and Small Buildings, and Occupancy, National Research Council of Canada, 1990 The literature points to a number of challenges in conducting cost benefit analyses, including: Some of the studies omit the annual maintenance cost of the automatic fire sprinkler system. The 1990 CMHC study estimates the annual inspection fees to be $35. This does not include the cost of fixing the automatic fire sprinkler system in case of a breakdown. Those costs could add up to hundreds of dollars for homeowners; Most studies do not include water damage costs associated with automatic fire sprinkler failures. A U.S. study quotes that water damage from non fire accidental discharges added only 25% to the fire losses suffered by [all types of] sprinklered buildings (NFPA, January 2009); Other than the CMHC (1990) study and the report by the Joint Task Group (1990), a majority of the cost benefit research does not compare the net cost of saving lives from automatic fire sprinklers to other life safety devices such as smoke alarms, that might be more cost efficient to save lives; and on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 17

To estimate the benefit of automatic fire sprinkler systems, most studies compare fatality rates and fire damage between homes with automatic fire sprinklers and ones without. In general, sprinklered homes are relatively new and constructed according to stricter building codes with modern fire detection technologies relative to homes without automatic fire sprinklers. Fire statistics point out that a large number of fatal accidents happen in older residential structures. As a result, the benefit of the automatic fire sprinkler system might be overstated. Thus, future cost benefit studies should be more conclusive on the various costs of the automatic fire sprinkler system, not just the installation cost. In addition, to actually estimate the benefits of the automatic fire sprinkler system, researchers should compare homes with similar structures and minimize the differences between homes with automatic fire sprinklers and homes without. 3.4 STATE OF FIRE RELATED STATISTICS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES In terms of the availability of fire incident statistics, the U.S. has a much more comprehensive reporting system than Canada. The two main fire statistics sources in the United States are: National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS): it is under the supervision of the U.S. Fire Administration in the Department of Homeland Security. Its objectives are to help State and local governments develop fire reporting and analysis capability for their own use, and to obtain data that can be used to more accurately assess and subsequently combat the fire problem at a national level 6 ; and National Fire Protection Association: Each year, the Association produces various customized reports on fire statistics, including the Large Loss Fires in the United States (NFPA, Nov. 2009), Catastrophic Multiple Death Fires (NFPA, Sept. 2009), Fire Loss in the United States (Karter, 2010), etc. Compared to the more centralized reporting system in the U.S., Canada lacks a more systematic approach to fire statistics reporting: 6 Website of the U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Incident Reporting System. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 18

Most fire statistics are constructed at the provincial level in Canada by each province s fire marshal/commissioner; reporting to the provincial marshal is generally voluntary, eroding the reliability of even the provincial level data; The only national fire statistics are published by the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners. The report is compiled from information supplied by the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and Statistics Canada. The latest report available is for the year 2002, and information received from this organization suggests that the report has been discontinued; The CMHC sometimes creates a special report on housing fire statistics. In 2004, it published a report, titled Canadian Housing Fire Statistics (CMHC, 2004) to develop statistical benchmarks and analyze indicators related to fire losses in residential structures in Canada; however These statistics are not as comprehensive and detailed as the NFIRS. Future research could focus on the feasibility of establishing a national fire incident reporting system in Canada that is similar to the NFIRS in the United States. 3.5 LITERATURE AND STATISTICAL GAPS Although there have been an extensive number of studies on the home automatic fire sprinkler system, research gaps in several areas still exist. Future studies could help fill these research gaps and assist regulators on whether to implement a mandatory requirement for automatic fire sprinkler installation in residential structures. These research areas include: Technical studies on the performance of the automatic fire sprinkler system in Canada, especially the performance of the single family automatic fire sprinkler system under extremely cold weather; Studies on the effectiveness of the automatic fire sprinkler system that compare fire damage statistics from similar residential structures or maybe a controlled experimental study (i.e. comparing the impact of automatic fire sprinklers on fire damage in two identical residential structures at a research facility); on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 19

Cost benefit studies that are more conclusive on various costs of the automatic fire sprinkler system, including water damage cost from automatic fire sprinkler failure incidents. To actually estimate the benefits of the automatic fire sprinkler system, researchers should compare homes with similar structures and minimize the differences between homes with automatic fire sprinklers and the ones without; and Feasibility studies on establishing a national fire incident reporting system in Canada that is similar to the NFIRS in the United States. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 20

4 CANADIAN FIRE EXPERIENCE This chapter examines the historic trends in residential fires in Canada over the past 25 years. 4.1 HISTORIC FIRE INCIDENTS 4.1.1 All Residential Structures The number of residential fires in Canada has declined dramatically over the past 25 years. In 1984, the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners (CCFM & FC) reported a total of 33,185 residential fires. By 2008, the number of fires was estimated to have fallen to about 20,400. The 38% decline in the number of fires occurred against a backdrop of a 30% increase in the population over the same period. The results are illustrated in Figure 6. There has been a decline in both the average number of fires per five year period as well as the per capita fire incidence. Figure 6 Fires per Period and per Capita Fire Incidence on the Decline 40,000 32,000 All Residential Structures Average Number of Fires Fires per 1000 Population 2.0 1.6 24,000 1.2 16,000 0.8 8,000 0.4 0 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 0.0 Source: based on data from Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners and other provincial fire authorities In the 1984 1988 period, there were an average of 32,400 fires per year representing 1.24 fires per 1,000 population. Within 10 years, the average number of residential fires had declined to 23,900 annually for a per capita on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 21

average of 0.81 per 1,000 population for the 1994 1998 period. The next 10 years saw a continuation of the decline in the number of fires as well as the per capita fire incidence, though at a slower rate than the previous decade. 4.1.2 One and Two Family Dwellings An examination of the trend in fires in one and two family dwellings reveals an experience very similar to that of all residential structures. Both the average number of fires and the number of fires per 1,000 population has fallen in each five year period over the 25 year horizon (see Figure 7). Figure 7 Declines in Number of Fires and per Capita Fire Incidence 30,000 24,000 One & Two Family Dwellings Number of Fires Fires per 1000 Population 1.5 1.2 18,000 0.9 12,000 0.6 6,000 0.3 0 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 0.0 Source: based on data from Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners and other provincial fire authorities However, a notable difference in the one and two family dwelling fire statistics is the more prominent decline during the 1990s compared to all residential structures. This corresponds with new smoke alarm requirements in many jurisdictions that were introduced in the 1980s and 1990s. 4.2 HISTORIC FIRE INJURIES 4.2.1 All Residential Structures The trend in fire injuries has in large part followed the trend in fires in Canada. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 22

The number of injuries has fallen from an average of approximately 2,500 per year in the 1984 1988 period to just about 1,700 per year in the latest period (see Figure 8). The per capita rate of fire injuries has also fallen over the 25 years, from an average of 95 per million population in the 1984 1988 period to 52 per million population in the 2004 2008 period. Figure 8 Injuries and Per Capita Rate Declining 3,000 2,500 All Residential Structures Injuries Per Million Population 120 100 2,000 80 1,500 60 1,000 40 500 20 0 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 0 Source: based on data from Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners and other provincial fire authorities The 1989 1993 period recorded an increase in the average number of injuries compared to the previous five year period. This is attributed to a rather large jump in injuries that was reported in 1992 (2,862) compared to either the previous year (2,530) or the subsequent year (2,268). 4.2.2 One and Two Family Dwellings In terms of injuries in fires in one and two family dwellings, the data show a marked decline in both the number of injuries in total and on a per capita basis through the 1990s and early 2000s, but a modest uptick in both measures in recent years. Note that estimates for the period since 2000 are based on data from selected provinces. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 23

Figure 9 Injuries and Per Capita Rate Generally Declining 2,000 1,600 One and Two Family Dwellings Injuries Per Million Population 60 48 1,200 36 800 24 400 12 0 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 0 Source: based on data from Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners and other provincial fire authorities Figure 10 Deaths and Per Capita Rate Declining 500 400 All Residential Structures Deaths Per Million Population 20 16 300 12 200 8 100 4 0 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 0 Source: based on data from Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners and other provincial fire authorities on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 24

4.3 HISTORIC FIRE DEATHS 4.3.1 All Residential Structures The number of deaths resulting from residential fires has been on a steady decline over the past 25 years (see Figure 10). An average of just over 450 persons per year died in residential fires in the 1984 1988 period. For the latest period, the average has fallen to just over half that number to 243 persons per year in the 2004 2008 period. The trend in the number of deaths per million population has fallen in step with the overall decline in the number of deaths. 4.3.2 One and Two Family Dwellings In terms of the number of deaths in fires in one and two family dwellings, the data show a steady decline in both the number of deaths in total and on a per capita basis through the 1984 2003 period, but a modest uptick in the number of deaths and a steady reading on deaths per capita in the past 5 years. Note that estimates for the period since 2000 are based on data from selected provinces. Figure 11 Deaths and Per Capita Rate Declining 500 400 One & Two Family Dwellings Deaths Per Million Population 20 16 300 12 200 8 100 4 0 1984-1988 1989-1993 1994-1998 1999-2003 2004-2008 0 Source: based on data from Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners and other provincial fire authorities on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 25

4.4 DETECTORS Data on the presence or functionality of smoke detectors and automatic fire sprinkler systems is not available from the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners (CCFM & FC). 4.5 CONCLUSIONS The Canadian fire experience has been characterized by a steady decline in the average number of fires over the 1984 2008 period. Despite the population increase (and household increase) over this period, the number of fires per capita has also been falling. The experience in fires in one and two family dwellings has shown a similar pattern of declining numbers and a falling per capita rate over the study period. The number of injuries and the per capita rate of injuries in fires in residential structures have fallen over the study period, except for an increase in both over the 1989 1993 period. The absolute number of deaths and the per capita death rate in fires has also declined over the study period. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 26

5 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS This chapter investigates the effectiveness of automatic fire sprinkler systems in reducing the number of casualties (injuries and deaths) and the cost of damages in fires. The focus of this chapter is on fire incidences in one and two family homes. 5.1 METHODOLOGY The objective of the statistical analysis is to measure the effectiveness of automatic fire sprinkler systems in single family residential homes. The literature review undertaken for this study reveals that a number of factors can have a bearing on the severity of a single family home fire, including presence of a smoke alarm, type of construction material, design of home, contents and the proximity to other dwellings. Challenges exist in assembling a database which is large enough (i.e., number of fire records) to properly capture the experience of homes with automatic fire sprinklers, and also comprehensive enough to properly control for all the factors. The fire record data reported by fire chiefs in Canada and the U.S. generally give information on date and severity of fires along with the presence of any detection or automatic fire sprinkler systems, but reveal little other useful information about the property, such as construction materials, design or proximity to other dwellings. The approach in this study tries to ʺproxyʺ these latter factors by a ʺpairwiseʺ examination of the fire experiences across very similar municipalities. A total of seven municipalities with a large number of sprinklered single family homes were chosen (see section 0 for more on this selection process). A comparator municipality was chosen for each that has generally similar single family housing characteristics other than the sprinkler ordinance. These characteristics include similarity in population, age of housing stock, recent pace of growth, location (same state or province and close proximity so construction practices covered by the same/similar building code). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 27

5.2 FIRE DATABASE The compilation of the fire database used in the statistical analysis commenced with the fire records in single family (one and two family) homes collected from three sources: BC Office of the Fire Commissioner; Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal; and FEMA National Fire Incident Reporting System. An examination of the individual records determined that a number of issued needed to be addressed. This study excludes records where the reported loss was under $500. A number of records reported either no information on losses or a very low value. Since the records are intended to report the loss from a fire occurrence, a minimum loss value was established that would not bias cases with minimal damage while at the same time not unduly influencing the overall average losses. In the Cal Fire and NFIRS data, a large number of records covered incidents that did not include necessary information. For example, chimney fires and cooking related fires did not contain information on losses or injuries for the overwhelming number of records. These records were excluded so as not to improperly influence statistics related to average fire loss or the rate of casualties in fires. Therefore, only building fires were included. Finally, in a small number of records, there was information about the presence of a detection system, but of undetermined type. These records were also excluded. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 28

Figure 12 Compilation of Useable Building Fire Records, Subject and Comparator Areas, 1988-200 Total Less Small 1 Fires Less Other Structure Type Fires Less Building Fires with Undetermined Detector Type Equals: Useable Building Fire Records Scottsdale 151 85 8 0 58 Mesa 444 171 39 11 223 Prince Georges 5,075 3,214 64 0 1,797 Montgomery 2,044 705 255 43 1,041 Fremont 415 183 81 0 151 Hayward 95 76 3 0 16 Brentwood 176 131 13 0 32 Oakley 161 125 6 4 26 San Clemente 148 50 10 0 88 San Juan Capistrano 149 53 10 7 79 Yolo 907 608 63 0 236 Solano 1,061 425 88 30 518 Vancouver 3,281 668 0 0 2,613 Richmond 1,011 167 0 0 844 Total 15,118 6,661 640 95 7,722 1 The term 'small fires' refers to all fire records in which a property loss value under $500 was recorded. Source: based on data from the FEMA National Fire Incident Reporting System, the Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal and the British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner The remaining records were then assessed as to whether or not a smoke (or heat) detector was present. Finally, the records were analyzed for the presence of an automatic fire sprinkler system. The initial number of records covered 15,118 single family home fire incidents. A total of 7,817 building fires with a loss of $500 or more remained. Of these building fires, 95 indicated the detector type as undetermined, and were therefore eliminated, bringing the number of useable building fire records to 7,722 (see Figure 12). Of these records, 5,719 either did not report information on the presence of detectors or that no detectors were present, 1,868 reported the presence of a smoke/heat alarm only and 135 reportedly contained an automatic fire sprinkler system (see Figure 13). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 29

Figure 13 Fire Records with Smoke/Heat Detectors or Sprinkler/Multiple Detectors, Subject and Comparator Jurisdictions, 1988-2009 Useable Records Building Fire Incidences Smoke/Heat Detector Only Sprinklers/ Multiple Detectors Scottsdale 58 18 1 Mesa 223 86 1 Prince Georges 1,797 81 10 Montgomery 1,041 299 3 Fremont 151 59 19 Hayward 16 2 n.a. Brentwood 32 17 4 Oakley 26 12 n.a. San Clemente 88 50 5 San Juan Capistrano 79 46 1 Yolo 236 83 12 Solano 518 196 1 Vancouver 2,613 555 72 Richmond 844 364 6 Total 7,722 1,868 135 Source: based on data from the FEMA National Fire Incident Reporting System, the Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal and the British Columbia Office of the Fire 5.3 PAIRWISE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS To study whether or not automatic fire sprinkler systems have impacted on the severity of damages or the rate of injuries and deaths, a total of seven areas were investigated. Comparative jurisdictions, either not having an automatic fire sprinkler ordinance in place or having one only recently adopted were selected for each of the areas. A brief description of each of the U.S. jurisdictions is provided and includes a photograph of residential dwellings found in the subject and comparator areas. The images are of homes in which a fire actually occurred and was reported in the fire incidence database. The images show that the type of dwellings in both the subject and comparative jurisdictions are structurally similar. Unfortunately the British Columbia database did not include the addresses of on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 30

the residences affected by a fire incidence; therefore pictures of these dwellings were not able to be included. Only basic information regarding structure type involved in incidences is collected by the various fire reporting organizations. Supporting tables and the full data analysis can be found in the Appendix. 5.3.1 Vancouver, British Columbia The City of Vancouver is situated along the south western coast of the province, in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. The comparator municipality chosen is Richmond, located slightly south of the City of Vancouver. Both cities are part of the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area (CMA). Data for Vancouver and Richmond were provided by the British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner, Emergency Management. Data were provided for the 1988 to 2009 period on a consistent basis. However, a change in the recording system impacted the 2003 2007 period. Fire losses in Vancouver were about $3,700 less in homes with detectors compared to homes without, while the death rate per fire was marginally higher. Fire losses and injuries per fire were significantly lower in homes with automatic fire sprinkler systems compared to homes without any detectors, at just over $10,000 less and almost a quarter of the injuries on average. The number of deaths per fire was slightly higher in sprinklered homes. In Richmond; fire losses were marginally higher in homes with detectors as was the injury rate the death rate dropped slightly. Overall, average loss values were higher in Richmond than in Vancouver, regardless of whether or not the single family home fire had detectors of any sort installed. Fire losses in Richmond were slightly more than $12,000 higher than in Vancouver. In contrast, the injury and death rates in all cases (with or without detectors) were higher in Vancouver compared to Richmond, with the number of injuries at least five times greater in Vancouver. The fire data and pairwise analysis for Vancouver and Richmond Hill is summarized in Table C 1 of Appendix C. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 31

5.3.2 Prince George s County, Maryland Prince George s County is found in the southern portion of Maryland, along the state s western border, just east of Washington, D.C. It is part of the Baltimore Washington Metropolitan Area (MSA). The comparative county chosen is Montgomery, situated just north of Washington, D.C. and southwest of Baltimore. It is a part of both the Washington Metropolitan Area and the Baltimore Washington Metropolitan Area (Figure 14). Figure 14 Representative Dwellings Prince George s County, Maryland, U.S. Montgomery County, Maryland, U.S. Source: based on images from Google Maps FEMA data for Prince George s and Montgomery cover the period starting in the year 2000. However, it would appear that data on detectors were either not entered or only entered on a very limited basis for the 2000 2005 period. In addition, NFIRS data for 2007 from FEMA had a number of problems that rendered it unusable. In Prince George s County, injuries and deaths were significantly lower in homes with detectors when compared to homes with no detectors. Fire losses in single family building fires with detectors were about $19,000 more than in homes without detectors. Homes with automatic fire sprinklers recorded higher property losses in Prince George s and reported a lower injury rate. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 32

The death rate was zero in the data for both smoke/heat alarms and sprinklers. Fire losses in Montgomery County homes with detectors were slightly higher than losses recorded in building fires with no detectors. The injury rate was sharply higher in homes with smoke alarms, at just over three times the rate in homes without detectors. The death rate was almost five times lower in single family building fires with detectors when compared to homes without detectors. Regardless of the presence of detectors, fire losses in Montgomery were generally more than double the average loss reported in Prince George s. Injuries and deaths in single family building fires with detectors were both higher in Montgomery County. In fires without detectors, the injury rate was higher in Prince George s County, and the death rate was higher in Montgomery. Homes with smoke alarms in Prince George s had significantly lower losses, injuries and deaths compared to Montgomery. The fire data and pairwise analysis for Prince George s and Montgomery counties is summarized in Table C 2 of Appendix C. 5.3.3 Scottsdale, Arizona The City of Scottsdale is found almost in the centre of the U.S. state of Arizona, in the Salt River Valley, slightly northeast of the City of Phoenix. The comparative city chosen is Mesa, a suburb located southeast of Scottsdale. Mesa is the third largest city in the state. Both cities are part of the Phoenix Metropolitan Area (Figure 15). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 33

Figure 15 Representative Dwellings Scottsdale, AZ, U.S. Mesa, AZ, U.S. Source: based on images from Google Maps Data for Scottsdale and Mesa were compiled from information provided by FEMA. It is well known that Scottsdale has collected data for a number of years as evidenced by the various studies undertaken of that city. Yet their participation in the NFIRS data seems to have not begun until 2005. The NFIRS data for 2007 from FEMA had a number of problems that rendered it unusable. Therefore Scottsdale and Mesa data covered only the years 2005, 2006 and 2008. In Scottsdale, fire losses were sharply lower in homes with detectors compared to homes without, and losses in homes with automatic fire sprinkler systems were drastically reduced, equivalent to less than 1% of fire losses recorded in homes with no detectors. No death or injuries were reported in the 3 years of data. Fire losses, as well as the injury and death rates in Mesa were lower in homes with either smoke/heat alarms or automatic fire sprinklers. The injury rate was significantly less in single family building fires with detectors, when compared to fires with no detectors present, which had an injury rate more than 2.5 times higher. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 34

Scottdale s average losses were drastically higher than losses in Mesa, regardless of the presence of any type of detectors. In single family building fires with smoke alarms, Scottsdale s property loss was more than $50,000 higher than the average loss in Mesa. There were no recorded injuries or deaths in Scottsdale, whereas Mesa s injury and death rates, especially the number of injuries, was quite elevated. The fire data and pairwise analysis for Scottsdale and Mesa is summarized in Table C 3 of Appendix C. 5.3.4 Fremont, California Fremont is located in the southernmost section of Alameda, a county in the north western portion of the state of California. The city is part of both the Tri City Area and Silicon Valley. Hayward, situated north of Fremont, is the city chosen as the comparator. Both Fremont and Hayward are considered principal cities of the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area (Figure 16). Figure 16 Representative Dwellings Fremont, CA, U.S. Hayward, CA, U.S. Source: based on images from Google Maps Cal Fire provided data on fire incidents in Fremont (2004 2009) and Hayward (2002 2009). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 35

In Fremont, fire losses and injuries were higher in single family building fires with either smoke/heat alarms or automatic fire sprinkler systems when compared to incidents with neither type of detector present, with the injury rate almost doubled in homes with detectors. No deaths were recorded. In Hayward; fire losses were more than five times lower in homes with smoke alarms than in homes without any type of detector no injuries or deaths were reported. Fire losses in Fremont were significantly higher in homes with no detectors, and sharply higher in homes with detectors, when compared to losses in Hayward. The average loss in Fremont was over $40,000 more in singlefamily building fires without detectors, and almost eleven times greater than in Hayward in fires with smoke alarms. No injuries or deaths were reported in Hayward. The fire data and pairwise analysis for Fremont and Hayward is summarized in Table C 4 of Appendix C. 5.3.5 Brentwood, California The City of Brentwood is located in the eastern section of Contra Costa County which is in the north western portion of the state of California. The comparator municipality is Oakley, situated north of Brentwood. Oakley became California s newest incorporated city on July 1, 1999. Both cities are part of the Oakland MSA and are found in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area (Figure 17). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 36

Figure 17 Representative Dwellings Brentwood, CA, United States Oakley, CA, United States Source: based on images from Google Maps Cal Fire provided data on fire incidents in Brentwood and Oakley covering the 2005 2009 period. In Brentwood, fire losses were significantly lower in homes with either smoke/heat alarms or automatic fire sprinklers compared to homes with neither type of detector. Automatic fire sprinklers did not result in much of a difference in property loss in Brentwood when comparing them to homes with smoke alarms. No injuries or deaths were reported. Fire losses in Oakley were much lower in homes with detectors, at just over $40,000 less than in homes without any detectors. The injury rate was higher in single family building fires with detectors, while no deaths were reported. Overall, average loss in Brentwood was less than loss in Oakley, with the presence of detectors having little impact. Whether or not detectors were installed in the home, losses in Brentwood were about $100,000 lower than in Oakley. No injuries or deaths were reported in Brentwood. The fire data and pairwise analysis for Brentwood and Oakley is summarized in Table C 5 of Appendix C. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 37

5.3.6 San Clemente, California San Clemente is a coastal city situated south of Anaheim. It is located at the southern tip of Orange County, California. San Juan Capistrano, located 10 kilometres north of San Clemente, is the city chosen as the comparator. These cities are in the southern portion of the U.S. State of California (Figure 18). Figure 18 Representative Dwellings San Clemente, CA, U.S. San Juan Capistrano, CA, U.S. Source: based on images from Google Maps Cal Fire provided data on fire incidents in San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano covering the 2001 2009 period. Both property losses and the injury rate in San Clemente were higher in homes with either type of detector, yet much lower in homes with automatic fire sprinkler systems, when compared to homes without any type of detector present. Average fire loss in homes with detectors was more than twice the loss in homes without detectors. However, automatic fire sprinklers resulted in a large decline in fire losses in homes with this type of detector, equivalent to over $11,000 less than the average loss recorded for homes without detectors. No deaths were reported in San Clemente. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 38

In San Juan Capistrano; fire losses as well as the injury and death rates were also significantly higher in homes with detectors when compared to homes without any type of detectors. Fire losses were slightly lower in San Clemente, whereas the number of injuries was slightly higher, regardless of the fact that detectors were present or not in the home. Average loss in single family building fires with smoke/heat alarms was approximately $27,000 less in San Clemente compared to San Juan Capistrano. The fire data and pairwise analysis for San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano is summarized in Table C 6 of Appendix C. 5.3.7 Yolo County, California Yolo County is located in the northern part of the State of California. It is a relatively rural agricultural region for the most part. The county is part of the Sacramento Arden Arcade Roseville MSA. Solano County is the comparator county chosen for the study. It is situated in the Bay Delta region of the state, about halfway between the cities of San Francisco and Sacramento (Figure 19). Figure 19 Representative Dwellings Yolo County, CA, U.S. Solano County, CA, U.S. Source: based on images from Google Maps on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 39

Cal Fire provided data on fire incidents in Yolo (2000 2009) and Solano (2001 2009). Average fire loss in Yolo County was just over $20,000 less in single family building fires with detectors than in fires with no detectors present. The injury and death rates were also lower in homes with detectors when compared to those without. In Yolo, property loss and the injury rate in homes with automatic fire sprinklers were however drastically higher compared to homes with smoke alarms alone, with loss in sprinklered homes at almost three times as much as in homes with smoke alarms. In Solano County; the reported fire losses and injury and death rates were all lower in homes with both types of detectors, well as with smoke alarms alone, when compared to fires incidences without detectors. The presence of detectors impacted the number of injuries most notably. Fire losses in homes without detectors were greater in Yolo County when compared to Solano County. Conversely, in homes with detectors, fire losses were marginally less in Yolo. The average loss in single family building fires with smoke alarms was $17,000 less in Yolo County. The injury rates in Yolo were significantly higher, regardless of the presence of detectors death rates were higher in Solano. The injury rate in building fires with smoke alarms was more than double in Yolo. The fire data and pairwise analysis for Yolo and Solano is summarized in Table C 7 of Appendix C. 5.3.8 Overall The following figures (Figures 20 22) represent the gap analysis measured for fire incidences in single family homes in the subject and comparator jurisdictions with smoke alarms installed. The effectiveness of smoke/heat alarms in reducing fire losses varied across the study areas (Figure 20). When compared to their respective comparator areas, Scottsdale and Fremont reported higher fire losses in homes with smoke alarms while Vancouver, Prince George s, Brentwood, San Clemente and Yolo all reported lower losses. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 40

Figure 20 Pairwise Comparison of the Effectiveness of Smoke Alarms, Fire Losses, Subject and Comparator Jurisdictions $2009 (000s) 120 103.0 80 40 54.5 0-40 -80-12.5-41.8-27.3-17.4-120 Vancouver (Richmond) Prince George's (Montgomery) Scottsdale (Mesa) Fremont (Hayward) -99.8 Brentwood (Oakley) San Clemente (San Juan Capistrano) Yolo (Solano) Source: on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 41

In many of the study areas, smoke alarms proved to be effective in reducing the injury in fires (Figure 21). All of the subject jurisdictions reporting fire injuries showed a lower or minimal injury rate in fires in homes with smoke/heat alarms when compared to fires in their respective comparative jurisdictions, with the exception of Vancouver and Fremont. Figure 21 Pairwise Comparison of the Effectiveness of Smoke Alarms, Fire Injuries, Subject and Comparator Jurisdictions Per 100 Fires 30 19.9 20 25.4 10 8.2 0 1.5-10 -8.1-8.3-20 Vancouver (Richmond) -13.9 Prince George's (Montgomery) Scottsdale (Mesa) Fremont (Hayward) Brentwood (Oakley) San Clemente (San Juan Capistrano) Yolo (Solano) Source: In all of the study areas except one, smoke alarms proved to be effective in reducing death in fires. More than 50% of the subject jurisdictions had a lower death rate than their respective comparative area, along with Fremont and Brentwood and their comparator jurisdictions recording no deaths in single family building fires with smoke alarms. The only exception was Vancouver, which had a marginally higher death rate than its comparator, Richmond. (Figure 22). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 42

Figure 22 Pairwise Comparison of the Effectiveness of Smoke Alarms, Fire Deaths, Subject and Comparator Jurisdictions 2 Per 100 Fires 1.5 1 0 0.0 0.0-1 -2-3 Vancouver (Richmond) -0.3 Prince George's (Montgomery) -1.2 Scottsdale (Mesa) Fremont (Hayward) Brentwood (Oakley) -2.2 San Clemente (San Juan Capistrano) -1.0 Yolo (Solano) Source: 5.3.9 Conclusion The individual study jurisdictions show a mixed result in the effectiveness of smoke/heat alarms. More subject areas reported lower losses in homes with smoke alarms although Fremont showed a very large increase in losses. For the most part smoke alarms have been effective in reducing injuries in fires in the subject jurisdictions compared to their respective comparators, again except for Fremont, as well as Vancouver. Overall the number of deaths is less when comparing the subject areas to the comparators, with Vancouver being the only study area to have a higher death rate than its comparative jurisdiction. 5.4 AGGREGATE FINDINGS This section compares the average fire loss and injury and death rate for homes with smoke alarms only, compared to homes with both smoke alarms and automatic fire sprinklers for the study areas aggregated together. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 43

5.4.1 Fire Casualties 5.4.1.1 Injuries Automatic fire sprinklers have proven to significantly reduce the number of fires injuries in the dataset utilized for this report (Figure 23). The aggregate injury rate was roughly 15 per 100 fires in homes without any detectors, 19 per 100 fires in homes with only smoke alarms but fell to just over 8 per 100 fires in homes with automatic fire sprinklers. Figure 23 Effectiveness of Smoke Alarms and Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Fire Injuries, Aggregate of Study Areas with Sprinkler Ordinances 25 Per 100 Fires 20 19.00 15 15.37 10 8.13 5 0 No Detector Present Smoke Alarms Sprinklers Source: 5.4.1.2 Deaths The effectiveness of automatic fire sprinklers to reduce the death rate in fires is not borne out by the data set analysed (Figure 24). Although one can conclude that with only two fire deaths being reported, automatic fire sprinklers would appear to be effective. However, the death rate per fire is actually higher in sprinklered homes compared to homes with only smoke/heat alarms. However, these two deaths occurred in a sprinklered home in which an explosion occurred, compared to ten deaths in homes with only smoke alarms. Due to a low number of homes with automatic fire sprinkler systems compared to the number with smoke alarms, the incidence rate is higher. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 44

Figure 24 Effectiveness of Smoke Alarms and Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Fire Deaths, Aggregate of Study Areas with Sprinkler Ordinances 2.0 Per 100 Fires 1.63 1.5 1.0 1.08 1.16 0.5 0.0 No Detector Present Smoke Alarms Sprinklers Source: 5.4.2 Fire Losses The effectiveness of automatic fire sprinklers to reduce fire losses is uncertain in the data assessed. Fire losses were slightly higher in homes without detectors compared to homes with smoke alarms, and even higher in homes with automatic fire sprinklers (Figure 25). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 45

Figure 25 Effectiveness of Smoke Alarms and Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Fire Losses, Aggregate of Study Areas with Sprinkler Ordinances 75,000 60,000 $2009 64,291 45,000 42,093 46,726 30,000 15,000 0 No Detector Present Smoke Alarms Sprinklers Source: 5.4.3 Conclusions In the study areas considered, the data show that the presence of automatic fire sprinkler systems greatly reduce injuries. However, fire losses appear to be relatively unchanged with the presence of smoke/heat alarms, and noticeably higher with the presence of automatic fire sprinkler systems. Finally, only two deaths have been reported in homes with automatic fire sprinklers (although the resultant death rate calculates higher). on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 46

6 COST BENEFIT OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM ORDINANCE This section investigates a cost benefit scenario based on the findings from the statistical study and, where appropriate, the literature review. The data presented in this section represent a scenario of cost benefit, as the limitations in the data used in the statistical section, and gaps in the literature, both of which have been discussed in earlier sections of this report. Detailed calculations and data supporting the findings in this section are contained in Appendix E. 6.1 SCENARIO FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING STARTS IN CANADA BY FIVE YEAR PERIOD TO 2031 was retained by the Canadian Home Builders Association in 2009 to prepare a report on long term housing demand in Canada. That report, published in July 2009 set out a scenario for new housing demand through to 2031. The housing growth projections contained in that report are used here for the purposes of a base scenario for single family housing starts in Canada by five year period to 2031. Figure 26 Housing Starts, Canada, 2011-2031 Units, 000s, Average Annual 160.0 140.0 120.0 100.0 Single-Detached Semi-Detached Row 129.3 128.3 108.9 98.7 80.0 60.0 40.0 109.4 109.1 93.1 84.5 20.0 0.0 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Source: on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 47

Key highlights of that forecast include: Average annual single family housing starts over the 2011 2031 period are expected to be some 116,300 units; The majority of new single family housing starts over the period will be single detached units; and In all, a total of 2.3 million new single family dwellings are expected to be constructed in Canada over that period. Estimates have been prepared for the square footage of new single family residential construction to be built through the forecast period, based on estimates of typical square footage per dwelling. Estimates are based on 2,000 sq. ft. single detached units and 1,400 sq. ft. semi detached and row housing units. Based on these assumptions, a total of some 222 million sq. ft. of new single family residential construction is expected to be built through the forecast period for a total of some 4.4 billion sq. ft. 6.2 SCENARIO FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FIRES IN CANADA BY FIVE YEAR PERIOD TO 2031 This analysis assumes a scenario for the number of fire incidences expected in homes built between 2011 and 2031: Historically, the number of fire situations per 1,000 single family dwellings declined through the 1990s and has been relatively stable since (similar to the pattern of per capita fires reviewed in Figure 7). In 1991 the number of fire situations per 1,000 dwellings was 3.2 and this declined to 1.2 by 2000 and further to 1.1 by 2008. This analysis assumes that fire situations will remain at 1.1 per 1,000 dwellings (presented as 5.5 per 1,000 over the five year period). This assumes that the stability in fire incidence rates observed over the past 8 years will continue. Given the longer term observation of the reduction in fire situations per dwelling, these are considered conservative assumptions. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 48

Figure 27 Total Fire Situations in Single-family Homes Built after 2010, Canada, 2011-2031 14.0 12.0 10.0 Fires, 000s, total (for five-year period) Total Fires for 20-year period: 33,518 or 1,676 per year 10.1 12.8 8.0 7.1 6.0 4.0 3.6 2.0 0.0 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Source: Given the assumption of 1.1 situations per 1,000 dwellings, and the projection for new single family housing given above, the base scenario is for some 1,676 fires per year in homes built in 2011 and beyond in Canada, for a total of some 33,500 fires through the forecast period (Figure 27). 6.3 COST OF INSTALLATION IN 100% OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING STARTS IN CANADA, BY FIVE YEAR PERIOD, FROM 2011 2031 Estimates have been prepared showing the total costs to new homebuyers and homeowners in Canada related to a 100% sprinkler ordinance across Canada. Assumptions used include: Costs for the installation of new automatic fire sprinkler systems in homes is reviewed in Section 2.6, above. The literature shows a wide range of costs. Considering the range of values presented in the literature and converting to Canadian dollars with 2011 values, this scenario assumes about $2.00 per sq. ft. in installation costs. There was some evidence in the literature that per sq. ft. costs for installation may decline over time as automatic fire sprinkler systems become more widely employed, as there are economies of on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 49

scale on production and learned efficiencies in installation. Offsetting this effect would be normal price inflation. On net, this scenario adopts the conservative assumption that per sq. ft. installation costs will gradually decline through the forecast period by some 1% per year. The net result is that, for example, the singledetached value will decline from $2.00 per sq. ft. in 2011 to some $1.71 per sq. ft. in 2031. Figure 28 Total Homeowner Costs for Sprinklers Systems in All Post-2010 Single-family Homes, Canada, 2011-2031 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 $millions (Annual Average) Total Costs for 20-year period: $9.8 billion or $490.7 million per year Instalation Maintenance Accidental Discharge 530.0 529.7 464.7 438.2 0.0 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Source: There is some evidence in the literature that per sq. ft. costs for installation may be higher for smaller homes. The principle here is that there is a fixed component to the installation process, that is covered over the entire building s size, so larger buildings bring down the average per sq. ft. value. Based on this principle, this scenario assumes modestly higher per sq. ft. costs for installation in semi detached and row housing. It is assumed that a homeowner will have the automatic fire sprinkler system maintained about once every five years at a cost of $200. These costs are assumed to rise over time due to inflation. The literature is very unspecific about the magnitude of accidental discharge situations. There appears to be no sound data on this on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 50

aspect of the cost of automatic fire sprinkler systems, but through our review and interviews, it seems reasonable to assume about 1 in 50,000 installations may experience an accidental discharge in any given year. Assuming that such a discharge causes about $5,000 in damage to the property, the aggregate costs damage due to accidental discharge are estimated at about $3 million over the course of the forecast period. All told, considering installation costs, maintenance costs and the cost of damage due to accidental discharge of automatic fire sprinkler systems, owners of single family homes would be expected to bear costs of a mandated sprinkler ordinance of some $9.8 billion over the 20 year forecast period. 6.4 VALUE OF GAP IN INJURIES IN TERMS OF COSTS OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS Based on evidence presented in Section 5.4, in the sample examined in this study, there is a clear reduction in the number of injuries associated with fire situations in homes with installed automatic fire sprinkler systems relative to homes protected with just smoke alarms. The benefit from automatic fire sprinkler systems appears to bring the number of injuries per 100 fires down from 15 to 5 so a reduction of 10 injuries per 100 fires. This value is reflected in the impact modelling, and is assumed to apply throughout the forecast period. Based on this level of effectiveness, therefore, a mandate requiring automatic fire sprinklers in all new single family homes built over the next 20 years could be expected to reduce fire incident related injuries by some 3,352 injuries over the course of the 20 year period (an average of some 168 injuries per year). Based on this assumption, the costs to homeowners associated with the mandate would be equivalent to about $2.9 million per injury avoided. As illustrated in Figure 29, there is a declining pattern to the cost per injury over time, as the size of the post 2010 stock of single family homes increases in size. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 51

Figure 29 Total Cost per Injury Avoided* in Single-family Homes Built after 2010, Canada, 2011-2031 8.0 7.0 6.0 $millions, per injury avoided 7.4 Average cost over entire 20-year period: $2.9 million per injury avoided 5.0 4.0 3.7 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.3 1.7 0.0 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 * Assuming all Post-2010 homes include installed automatic fire sprinkler systems Source: 6.5 VALUE OF GAP IN DEATHS IN TERMS OF COSTS OF AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS Recalling the discussion in Section 5.4 on deaths, the findings from this study were that the number of deaths from fire incidences per 100 fires is higher among the sprinklered properties rather than those only protected by smoke alarms. As discussed in that section, that finding may be reflective of the sample of municipalities chosen, or of other facets of the database received from the Canadian and U.S. fire authorities. But at face value, an increase in the number of deaths related to the installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems would imply higher rather than lower deaths related to single family fires nationally related to a mandatory ordinance. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 52

Figure 30 Total Cost per Death Avoided* in Single-family Homes Built after 2010, Under Two Hypothetical Assumptions, Canada, 2011-2031 800.0 700.0 600.0 500.0 400.0 300.0 200.0 100.0 0.0 $millions, per Death avoided 75 745 Two Scenarios of Effectiveness All Deaths Are Curtailed 10% of Deaths are Curtailed 374 231 37 23 17 Average cost over entire 20-year period: $29 million, per Death avoided $290 million, per Death avoided 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 * Assuming all Post-2010 homes include installed automatic fire sprinkler systems Source: 171 For the purposes of the cost benefit scenario, therefore, rather than using the value raised through the analysis, two alternative views of possible mortality related benefits from automatic fire sprinkler systems are presented: The first scenario shown, in light blue, in Figure 30 shows the impact of an assumption of a reduction in mortality of 1 death per 100 fires. Note that total deaths per 100 fires in the study is 1, therefore this scenario tests the most conservative assumption possible: curtailing all potential deaths. That is, this assumes that there will be no deaths at all in fire situations in single family homes built in 2011 and beyond in Canada. Under this stretch scenario, assuming the ordinance curtails all possible deaths, the cost for each death curtailed over the course of the 20 year time frame is some $29 million. The second Scenario shown, in dark blue, in Figure 30 shows the impact of what could be considered a more reasonable assumption, and one which is consistent with some of the findings in the literature that automatic fire sprinklers will reduce mortality by about 10%. Thus Figure 29 shows the impact of reducing deaths per 100 fires by 0.1 per year. Based on this assumption, the costs to Canada s on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 53

homeowners for each death curtailed over the course of the 20 year time frame is some $293 million. Ultimately, the value of a policy that would cost between $30 million and $300 million in terms of each life saved, would depend on the value we place on life. These so called value of statistical life (VSL) calculations vary widely. Health Canada recently employed a value of $5.8 million per statistical life saved in considering regulatory measures around cigarette use 7. Other examples in regulatory use vary, but a cost in the order of $30 million appears to be well in excess of typical VSLs. 6.6 CONCLUSION The findings from the statistical analysis show that with the mandatory implementation of automatic sprinkler systems in all new single family homes in Canada, there is likely to be a reduction in the amount of property damage and the number of injuries related to fire situations. The evidence is less conclusive on the matter of whether sprinkler systems would lead to a reduction in the number of deaths. There are considerable costs involved in installing, maintaining and related to failure of automatic sprinkler systems, and a mandate to install automatic sprinkler systems in all homes would impose these costs onto the buyers of new homes. Comparing these costs to the illustrated benefits in terms of injuries, shows that over the first 20 years of a nation wide automatic sprinkler system mandate for single family homes, the cost per injury avoided is some $2.9 million. Due to the ambiguity of the statistical analysis with respect to deaths, it is hard to assign a cost per death avoided (the statistical analysis actually pointed to a potential increase in deaths related to sprinklers in single family homes). However, even if we assume absolute effectiveness of sprinklers that is they would be effective in stopping all deaths in fire situations in single family homes built after 2010 the cost per death avoided would be in the order of $29 million. If a more likely scenario is considered (sprinklers 7 Health Canada, 2002, Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement for the Proposed Cigarette Ignition Propensity Regulations and proposed Regulations Amending the Tobacco Reporting Regulations. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 54

leading to a 10% reduction in deaths), then the costs would rise to the order of $290 million per death avoided. These costs appear to be well in excess of the typical value of statistical life considered typical for regulatory measures. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page 55

Appendix A Fire Data Sources

FIRE DATA SOURCES CANADA For national data on fire incidences in Canada, the Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners (CCFM & FC) website was accessed, through which (AGEC) obtained the annual reports on fire losses in Canada dating from 1986 to 2002. According to the organization s president, Benoît Laroche, Fire Marshal, the reports had not been updated since 2002. Service Canada is the organization responsible for producing the reports. According to Colette Trudel of Service Canada, subsequent reports were not put together due to the lack of reporting by the individual provinces. Additional information regarding pre 1986 data was requested via Service Canada. Ultimately, data back to 1980 was obtained. Available provincial data was also compiled using annual statistical reports found on the individual provincial websites, as well as by contacting the provincial fire commissioner offices where required. AGEC estimated values based on the fire statistics for the 2003 2008 period. The following individuals assisted in the compilation of this data: Jennifer Bresciani, Fire Reporting Systems Officer, British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner; Mahendra Wijayasinghe, research & analysis manager, Alberta Emergency Management Agency; Paige Dimayuga, statistician, Manitoba Office of the Fire Commissioner; Janis Walton, Ontario Office of the Fire Marshal; and Benoît Laroche, Fire Marshal, New Brunswick Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The Public Security Ministry in Quebec was also contacted to obtain data, but AGEC was informed that data had not been kept up to date and that there is currently no one responsible for recording this data. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page A 1

BC FIRE STATS The British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner, Emergency Management was contacted to obtain incident statistics for the municipalities selected for the study. Data covered the 1988 to 2009 period for one and two family homes in Vancouver, Abbotsford, Richmond and Pitt Meadows. Data were provided for the following specific criteria: Number of fires; Property, content and total loss; and Civilian and fire fighter injuries and deaths. CAL FIRE The Office of the California State Fire Marshal was contacted in order to obtain data for California. This state, through the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), runs its own incident reporting system which is similar to the NFIRS system. According to Kirsti Fong, NFIRS Program Coordinator for California, the USFA database only includes data from [California] that is sent in by [the California Office of the State Fire Marshal] once a year. The data is not updated after the upload and therefore does not include updated or new data for prior years or current year. The [California] database is a separate database from the USFA database. AGEC received data for the years 2000 through 2009 for the cities of San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano, as well as for Solano and Yolo counties. Statistics from 2002 through to 2009 were received for the cities of Brentwood and Hayward. Data for the cities of Fremont and Oakley only went back to 2004; AGEC obtained earlier data for Fremont however it was for all incident types and could not be filtered further. Data obtained included the following criteria: Fires Detector type Address Property and contents loss Civilian and fire fighter injuries and deaths on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page A 2

NFIRS The United State Fire Administration (USFA) database, NFIRS (National Fire Incident Reporting System), was used for the remaining U.S. jurisdictions, namely the municipalities of Scottsdale and Mesa, Arizona, and the counties of Prince George s and Montgomery, Maryland. The NFIRS is made up of several individual modules or databases, three of which were used to compile a set of data for analysis for each individual year. Basic Incident (Basic Module NFIRS 1) The basic incident module is used by all fire departments in the United States to document an individual incident and its basic elements, and must be completed for every incident to which a fire department responds. Basic elements include fire department identification (FDID), incident date and time, incident number (unique number assigned to each individual incident), incident type, if aid was given or received, property use, whether a detector alerted occupants or not (required for confined fires), estimated dollar losses and values and number of casualties. For data from 2002 and on, the address at which the incident occurred is also included in this database. Incident Address This module only existed prior to 2002, when address information was not included in the Basic incident database. However, for subsequent years the incident address data were provided in a separate database file. Therefore, for all years the Incident Address database was merged with the Basic Incident database using the incident number as the link, in order to have the address information for each incident. Fire Incident (Structure Fire Module NFIRS 3) This database was used to obtain the detailed information regarding fire detectors for each incident, including whether or not a detector was present at the site of the incident and if so, the detector type. The database was filtered for the following variables: Property Use category 419 one and two family dwellings, including mobile homes on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page A 1

Incident type 111 123 structure fire and fire in mobile property used as a fixed structure Aid categories 1, 2, 5 or N since all fire stations/departments complete a report for each incident to which they respond, incidents with Aid categories 3 and 4 (mutual and automatic aid given) had to be eliminated in order to avoid double counting based on aid given versus received. Once the Basic Incident database was merged to the Incident Address database, it was filtered down to include only fires in required jurisdictions, and subsequently linked to the Fire Incident database. The total number of fires, values for property and contents loss, property value, contents value, number of injuries broken down by civilian and firefighter and number of deaths broken down by civilian and firefighter were then tabulated for each jurisdiction. These same elements were calculated for fire incidents in dwellings with smoke detectors, as well as dwellings with automatic fire sprinkler systems. Scottsdale, Arizona was chosen as a subject jurisdiction, however after filtering through the NFIRS data hardly any incidences remained. In fact, pertinent fire incidences were only found in 2005, 2006 and 2008. After verification with Stanford Stewart of the National Fire Data Centre, it was confirmed that Scottsdale had not reported any fire incidences in years other than these. The municipality is known to have a long history of automatic fire sprinkler systems in single family dwellings, and both a 10 year and more recently a 15 year study were published by the City Fire Department and promoted by the Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. Numerous attempts were made to obtain statistics directly from the fire department, but to no avail. First contacted was Ashley Gentry, Fire Records Coordinator, who stated that Public Records law and procedure prohibit any data sharing. Deputy Fire Chief Jim Ford was also contacted on three occasions; messages were left yet no return calls were ever received on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page A 2

CALCULATION OF AVERAGE FIRE LOSS Individual data on property and content loss were included for many of the fire incidents reported. However, there were quite a large number of incidents that did not include any loss values or very low values. Since even a relatively small fire for which assistance from a fire department is sought will undoubtedly cause damages, a floor was established for losses. A minimum loss of $500 was determined as appropriate. The inclusion of many small loss amounts in the $5 $50 range not only seemed unreasonable but would act to depress the overall average loss unnecessarily. CONVERSION OF AVERAGE FIRE LOSS TO CONSTANT $2009 In order to compare average loss value over time, it is necessary to adjust prices to constant dollar amounts to account for the general rise in prices, values and costs over time. For each area, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) was used to adjust loss values. Since the CPI represents the change in prices for a basket of goods, it is equally applicable to both the property loss values as well as the contents loss values. If the municipality was a part of a Census Metropolitan Area (CMA Canada) or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA US), the CPI for the CMA or MSA was used. Otherwise the CPI for the county containing the municipality was used. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page A 1

Appendix B Annual Canadian Data

ANNUAL CANADIAN DATA Fire Incidences in Canada, 1980-2008 Year All Residential Fires One and Two Family Dwelling Fires Population Total Number Total Property Loss Casualties Fire Incidence (per 1000 pop) Average Loss ($2009 per Fire) Casualties per 100 Fires Total Number Total Property Loss Casualties Fire Incidence (per 1000 pop) Average Loss ($2009 per Fire) Casualties per 100 Fires Persons $ Nominal $ 2009 1 Injuries Deaths Injuries Deaths $ Nominal $ 2009 1 Injuries Deaths Injuries Deaths 1980 24,515,667 40,053 340,469,905 884,551,638 2,234 661 1.63 22,085 5.578 1.650 29,510 232,589,628 604,275,249 1,275 442 1.20 20,477 4.321 1.498 1981 24,819,915 36,593 341,329,820 788,452,931 2,479 590 1.47 21,547 6.775 1.612 26,994 232,499,429 537,060,771 1,376 413 1.09 19,896 5.097 1.530 1982 25,116,942 35,235 385,781,384 804,497,469 2,612 581 1.40 22,832 7.413 1.649 25,316 265,956,077 554,617,200 1,345 394 1.01 21,908 5.313 1.556 1983 25,366,451 34,517 359,880,247 708,916,061 2,571 488 1.36 20,538 7.449 1.414 24,449 246,968,321 486,494,635 1,376 336 0.96 19,898 5.628 1.374 1984 25,607,053 33,185 347,821,801 656,885,085 2,670 511 1.30 19,795 8.046 1.540 22,815 243,660,345 460,169,104 1,320 333 0.89 20,170 5.786 1.460 1985 25,842,116 33,150 389,806,501 708,120,107 2,235 470 1.28 21,361 6.742 1.418 23,065 263,935,582 479,463,765 1,187 304 0.89 20,788 5.146 1.318 1986 26,100,278 33,184 381,221,387 664,644,044 2,468 436 1.27 20,029 7.437 1.314 21,495 247,420,158 431,367,022 1,327 283 0.82 20,068 6.174 1.317 1987 26,446,601 30,735 382,633,391 639,258,999 2,603 439 1.16 20,799 8.469 1.428 20,443 255,323,086 426,563,871 1,307 277 0.77 20,866 6.393 1.355 1988 26,791,747 31,752 441,921,116 709,720,763 2,492 415 1.19 22,352 7.848 1.307 21,423 293,325,169 471,077,202 1,263 254 0.80 21,989 5.896 1.186 1989 27,276,781 30,156 454,044,540 694,421,061 2,642 425 1.11 23,028 8.761 1.409 20,917 318,944,704 487,797,783 1,474 273 0.77 23,321 7.047 1.305 1990 27,691,138 30,304 531,645,271 775,768,100 2,661 388 1.09 25,600 8.781 1.280 20,616 357,923,118 522,275,570 1,404 245 0.74 25,334 6.810 1.188 1991 28,037,420 30,484 563,958,106 779,188,494 2,530 333 1.09 25,561 8.299 1.092 20,957 379,756,429 524,687,627 1,395 229 0.75 25,036 6.656 1.093 1992 28,371,264 29,196 539,985,621 735,408,989 2,862 333 1.03 25,189 9.803 1.141 19,797 382,485,938 520,909,420 1,523 215 0.70 26,313 7.693 1.086 1993 28,684,764 26,468 482,670,341 645,064,101 2,268 327 0.92 24,371 8.569 1.235 17,863 338,019,612 451,745,837 1,379 246 0.62 25,289 7.720 1.377 1994 29,000,663 25,098 458,543,212 612,104,358 2,279 273 0.87 24,389 9.080 1.088 16,640 333,042,499 444,574,818 1,262 172 0.57 26,717 7.584 1.034 1995 29,302,311 25,747 525,296,689 686,003,895 2,448 311 0.88 26,644 9.508 1.208 16,920 371,313,502 484,911,697 1,358 191 0.58 28,659 8.026 1.129 1996 29,610,218 24,367 530,636,639 682,843,999 2,230 279 0.82 28,023 9.152 1.145 15,949 380,810,343 490,041,656 1,171 158 0.54 30,726 7.342 0.991 1997 29,905,948 20,853 502,168,299 635,487,316 2,020 290 0.70 30,475 9.687 1.391 13,285 355,630,435 450,045,595 1,085 162 0.44 33,876 8.167 1.219 1998 30,155,173 23,546 525,332,902 658,248,456 1,873 258 0.78 27,956 7.955 1.096 10,916 254,951,128 319,456,835 989 127 0.36 29,265 9.060 1.163 1999 30,401,286 22,150 517,967,017 637,840,977 1,623 284 0.73 28,796 7.327 1.282 10,154 265,872,554 327,403,877 823 148 0.33 32,244 8.105 1.458 2000 30,685,730 21,206 529,516,309 634,975,532 1,676 243 0.69 29,943 7.903 1.146 9,350 272,066,925 326,252,162 778 124 0.30 34,893 8.321 1.326 2001 31,019,020 21,494 632,505,827 739,863,667 1,684 273 0.69 34,422 7.835 1.270 9,467 321,116,069 375,620,432 799 146 0.31 39,677 8.440 1.542 2002 2 31,353,656 22,186 712,209,529 814,767,701 1,809 250 0.71 36,724 8.154 1.127 9,375 322,508,347 368,949,549 789 126 0.30 39,355 8.417 1.339 2003 31,639,670 22,834 956,893,011 1,064,869,265 1,869 230 0.72 46,635 8.187 1.007 9,858 439,117,936 488,668,209 883 107 0.31 49,568 8.959 1.084 2004 31,940,676 21,441 627,882,167 686,052,721 1,914 235 0.67 31,998 8.925 1.096 9,252 346,993,700 379,141,158 1,064 154 0.29 40,979 11.496 1.660 2005 32,245,209 21,180 699,467,610 747,842,005 1,884 240 0.66 35,309 8.896 1.133 9,060 365,918,329 391,224,830 973 118 0.28 43,180 10.744 1.297 2006 32,576,074 20,647 798,893,096 837,702,751 1,678 220 0.63 40,572 8.127 1.066 8,794 396,409,923 415,667,234 908 111 0.27 47,267 10.330 1.261 2007 32,931,956 21,862 1,040,249,341 1,067,305,153 1,634 245 0.66 48,820 7.473 1.121 9,472 532,203,379 546,045,440 904 142 0.29 57,648 9.548 1.495 2008 33,327,337 20,427 954,227,432 956,736,356 1,369 277 0.61 46,836 6.702 1.356 8,846 532,099,434 533,498,468 830 170 0.27 60,309 9.387 1.924 1984-1988 26,157,559 32,401 675,725,799 2,494 454 1.24 20,855 7.696 1.402 21,848 453,728,193 1,281 290 0.84 20,767 5.862 1.328 1989-1993 28,012,273 29,322 725,970,149 2,593 361 1.05 24,759 8.842 1.232 20,030 501,483,247 1,435 242 0.72 25,037 7.164 1.206 1994-1998 29,594,863 23,922 654,937,605 2,170 282 0.81 27,378 9.071 1.180 14,742 437,806,120 1,173 162 0.50 29,698 7.957 1.099 1999-2003 31,019,872 21,974 778,463,428 1,732 256 0.71 35,427 7.883 1.165 9,641 377,378,846 814 130 0.31 39,144 8.448 1.349 2004-2008 32,604,250 21,111 859,127,797 1,696 243 0.65 40,695 8.032 1.153 9,085 453,115,426 936 139 0.28 49,876 10.303 1.527 1 Dollar value for 2009 was calculated using the current Consumer Price Index (CPI) 2 Values for 2002 one and two family dwelling fires were calculated using a reconciliation of CCFM & FC data for 2001 because published numbers appear miscalculated Note: Statistics for 2003-2008 are estimates based on data received from the individual province fire authorities of Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan Source: based on Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners, Fire Losses in Canada, Annual Reports on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page B 1

Appendix C Pairwise Statistical Analysis of Subject and Comparator Jurisdictions

PAIRWISE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS Table C 1 Fire Data Analysis, Vancouver and Richmond Vancouver Richmond Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 38,117 $ 47,598 $ (9,481) Injuries per 100 Fires 17.40 2.47 14.93 Deaths per 100 Fires 1.28 0.40 0.88 Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 38,748 $ 47,011 $ (8,263) Injuries per 100 Fires 22.10 2.32 19.78 Deaths per 100 Fires 1.61 0.63 0.98 Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 35,004 $ 47,834 $ (12,830) Injuries per 100 Fires 21.69 3.78 17.91 Deaths per 100 Fires 1.91 0.27 1.64 Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 35,860 $ 48,363 $ (12,502) Injuries per 100 Fires 23.78 3.85 19.94 Deaths per 100 Fires 1.80 0.27 1.53 Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 28,398 Injuries per 100 Fires 5.56 Deaths per 100 Fires 2.78 Source: based on data from the British Columbia Office of the Fire Commissioner on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 1

Table C 2 Fire Data Analysis, Prince George's and Montgomery Counties Prince George's Montgomery Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 37,227 $ 73,958 $ (36,731) Injuries per 100 Fires 2.89 4.87 (1.97) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.20 0.74 (0.54) Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 36,631 $ 66,845 $ (30,213) Injuries per 100 Fires 8.38 4.87 3.51 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.59 1.62 (1.04) Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 55,678 $ 90,962 $ (35,283) Injuries per 100 Fires 2.20 16.23 (14.03) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.33 (0.33) Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 49,784 $ 91,539 $ (41,755) Injuries per 100 Fires 2.47 16.39 (13.92) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.33 (0.33) Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 103,423 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 Source: based on data from the FEMA National Fire Incident Reporting System on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 2

Table C 3 Fire Data Analysis, Scottsdale and Mesa Scottsdale Mesa Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 200,532 $ 60,521 $ 140,011 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 9.14 (9.14) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 1.02 (1.02) Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 244,416 $ 66,546 $ 177,870 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 21.32 (21.32) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 2.21 (2.21) Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 100,014 $ 50,420 $ 49,594 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 8.05 (8.05) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 1.15 (1.15) Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 105,450 $ 50,993 $ 54,456 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 8.14 (8.14) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 1.16 (1.16) Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 2,171 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 Source: based on data from the FEMA National Fire Incident Reporting System on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 3

Table C 4 Fire Data Analysis, Fremont and Hayward Fremont Hayward Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 99,299 $ 43,149 $ 56,149 Injuries per 100 Fires 7.19 0.00 7.19 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 88,712 $ 47,973 $ 40,739 Injuries per 100 Fires 12.33 0.00 12.33 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 124,459 $ 9,385 $ 115,074 Injuries per 100 Fires 24.36 0.00 24.36 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 112,397 $ 9,385 $ 103,012 Injuries per 100 Fires 25.42 0.00 25.42 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 161,915 Injuries per 100 Fires 21.05 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 Source: based on data from the Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 4

Table C 5 Fire Data Analysis, Brentwood and Oakley Brentwood Oakley Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 24,757 $ 130,616 $ (105,859) Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 0.66 (0.66) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 49,038 $ 149,295 $ (100,257) Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 9,227 $ 108,823 $ (99,596) Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 8.33 (8.33) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 9,045 $ 108,823 $ (99,778) Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 8.33 (8.33) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 10,001 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 Source: based on data from the Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 5

Table C 6 Fire Data Analysis, San Clemente and San Juan Capistrano San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 61,312 $ 78,728 $ (17,416) Injuries per 100 Fires 4.35 2.27 2.08 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.76 (0.76) Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 33,437 $ 38,040 $ (4,603) Injuries per 100 Fires 6.06 0.00 6.06 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 0.00 0.00 Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 74,471 $ 106,521 $ (32,051) Injuries per 100 Fires 7.27 6.38 0.89 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 2.13 (2.13) Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 79,710 $ 107,033 $ (27,323) Injuries per 100 Fires 8.00 6.52 1.48 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 2.17 (2.17) Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 22,072 Injuries per 100 Fires 0.00 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 Source: based on data from the Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 6

Table C 7 Fire Data Analysis, Yolo and Solano Counties Yolo Solano Pairwise Comparison All Building Fires Average Loss ($2009) $ 64,885 $ 66,909 $ (2,024) Injuries per 100 Fires 3.67 4.14 (0.46) Deaths per 100 Fires 0.12 0.85 (0.73) Building Fires, No Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 76,690 $ 69,762 $ 6,927 Injuries per 100 Fires 14.18 9.03 5.15 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.71 1.87 (1.16) Building Fires, With Detectors Average Loss ($2009) $ 56,010 $ 61,924 $ (5,913) Injuries per 100 Fires 13.68 5.08 8.61 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 1.02 (1.02) Building Fires, With Smoke Alarms Average Loss ($2009) $ 44,831 $ 62,236 $ (17,406) Injuries per 100 Fires 13.25 5.10 8.15 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 1.02 (1.02) Building Fires, With Sprinklers Average Loss ($2009) $ 133,337 Injuries per 100 Fires 16.67 Deaths per 100 Fires 0.00 Source: based on data from the Cal Fire Office of the State Fire Marshal on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page C 7

Appendix E Cost Benefit Analysis

Table E 1 Projection of Single-Family Housing Starts, Canada 2011-2031 2011-2031 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Total Annual Average Housing Starts Single-Detached 547,000 Units 545,300 465,300 422,300 Units 1,979,900 98,995 Semi-Detached 46,400 46,300 37,700 33,300 163,700 8,185 Row 53,200 50,100 41,700 37,700 182,700 9,135 Total Single Family 646,600 641,700 544,700 493,300 2,326,300 116,315 Total Sq. Ft. New Construction (millions) Single-Detached 1,094 1,091 931 845 3,960 198 Semi-Detached 65 65 53 47 229 11 Row 74 70 58 53 256 13 Total Single Family 1,233 1,226 1,042 944 4,445 222 Table E 2 Projection of Single-Family Housing Fire Incidences, Canada 2011-2031 2011-2031 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Total Annual Average Fire Incidence Calculations Fire Situations per 1000 Dwellings 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 Total Fire Situations (in Post 2010 dwellings) 3,556 7,086 10,082 12,795 33,518 1,676 Source: on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page E 1

Table E 3 Projection of Costs Associated with Single-Family Housing Sprinklers, Canada 2011-2031 2011-2031 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Total Annual Average Sprinkler Costs ($ Per Sq. Ft.) Single-Detached $ 2.00 $ 1.90 $ 1.81 $ 1.71 Semi-Detached $ 2.25 $ 2.14 $ 2.03 $ 1.93 Row $ 2.50 $ 2.38 $ 2.26 $ 2.14 Initial Cost to Homeowners ($ millions) Single-Detached $ 2,188 $ 2,072 $ 1,680 $ 1,448 $ 7,388 $ 369.4 Semi-Detached $ 146 $ 139 $ 107 $ 90 $ 482 $ 24.1 Row $ 186 $ 167 $ 132 $ 113 $ 598 $ 29.9 Total Single Family $ 2,520 $ 2,377 $ 1,919 $ 1,651 $ 8,468 $ 423.4 Cumulative Housing Stock (units built in 2011 or later) Total Units 646,600 1,288,300 1,833,000 2,326,300 Per-Unit Maintenance Costs Per service, every 5-years $ 200.00 $ 210.00 $ 220.50 $ 231.53 Total Maintenance Spending ($ millions) Maintenance $ 129.32 $ 270.54 $ 404.18 $ 538.60 $ 1,343 $ 67.1 Accidental Loss Calculation Probability of accidential discharge 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 Per Unit Cost related to accidential discharge 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Total Costs realted to AD ($ millions) $ 0.3 $ 0.6 $ 0.9 $ 1.2 $ 3.0 $ 0.2 Total Costs Related to Mandate ($ millions) Instalation $ 2,520.36 $ 2,377.28 $ 1,918.63 $ 1,651.34 $ 8,467.61 $ 423.38 Maintenance $ 129.32 $ 270.54 $ 404.18 $ 538.60 $ 1,342.64 $ 67.13 Accidental Discharge $ 0.32 $ 0.64 $ 0.92 $ 1.16 $ 3.05 $ 0.15 Total $ 2,650.00 $ 2,648.46 $ 2,323.72 $ 2,191.10 $ 9,813.29 $ 490.66 on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page E 2

Table E 4 Projection of Single-Family Housing Fire Incidences, Canada 2011-2031 2011-2031 2011-16 2016-21 2021-26 2026-31 Total Annual Average Demonstrated Effectiveness of Automatic Sprinker Systems in Fire Situations Per incident reduction in injuries (per 100 fires) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Per incident reduction in deaths (per 100 fires) "A" 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Per incident reduction in deaths (per 100 fires) "B" 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Automatic Fire Sprinker Impacts Change in number of injuries (356) (709) (1,008) (1,279) (3,352) (168) Change in number of deaths "A" (36) (71) (101) (128) (335) (17) Change in number of deaths "B" (4) (7) (10) (13) (34) (2) Cost per injury avoided ($ 000s) $ 7,450 $ 3,740 $ 2,300 $ 1,710 $ 2,930 Cost per death avoided "A" ($ 000) $ 74,520 $ 37,380 $ 23,050 $ 17,130 $ 29,280 Cost per death avoided "B" ($ 000s) $ 745,160 $ 373,780 $ 230,490 $ 171,250 $ 292,780 on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page E 3

Appendix F Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY Cost/Benefit: Brown, Hayden. Economic Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). December 2005. Butry, D.T., M. Hayden Brown and S.K. Fuller. Benefit Cost Analysis of Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems. NIST. September 2007. Comparative Analysis of Housing Cost and Supply Impacts of Sprinkler Ordinances at the Community Level. National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). June 2009. Costs and Benefits to Municipalities of Mandatory Residential Fire Sprinklers. Technical Series 99 102. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Commission (CMHC). 1998. Costs and Benefits of Installing Fire Sprinklers in Houses. Technical Series 90 238. CMHC. 1990. Dewar, Buddy. Residential Fire Sprinklers for Life Safety An Economic and Insurance Perspective. Prepared for the Orange Country Fire Authority, California. National Fire Sprinkler Association (NFSA). February 25, 2001. Hall, John R. Jr. The Total Cost of Fire in the United States. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. March 2009. Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment Research Project. NFPA. September 2008. Home Fire Sprinkler Cost Assessment. Newport Partners, Fire Protection Research Foundation. September 2008. Isman, Kenneth E. ʺCost/Benefit to Society for Having Sprinklers in One and Two Family Dwellings A Pessimistic Analysis.ʺ Technically Speaking. 2005. Report of the Joint Task Group on Mandatory Installation of Sprinklers in Houses to the Standing Committees on Fire Protection, Housing and Small Buildings, and Occupancy. National Research Council of Canada (NRC). March 1990. Schaenman, P., J. Stern and R. Bush. Total Cost of Fire in Canada: an Initial Estimate. Arlington, Virginia: TriData Corporation, 1995. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 1

Siarnicki, Ronald Jon. Residential Sprinklers: One Community s Experience Twelve Years after Mandatory Implementation. Prepared For National Fire Academy. January 2001. Tracey, Sean A. Cost Benefit Analysis for Residential Sprinklers in Canada. 2009. Why Fire Sprinklers Should Not Be Mandated in One and Two Family Construction. National Association of Home Builders. Weatherby, Steve. Benefits of Residential Fire Sprinklers: Prince George s County 15 year History with its Single Family Residential Dwelling Fire Sprinkler Ordinance. Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. August 2009. Effectiveness: Smoke Alarm Performance in Residential Structure Fires. Topical Fire Research Series. Volume 1, Issue 15. U.S. Fire Administration. March 2001. ʺNew National Survey Shows a Majority of Homeowners Believe That Fire Sprinklers Increase a Home s Value.ʺ Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. 2005. <http://www.homefiresprinkler.org/releases/harrispoll.html>. ʺNFPA Impact: The Fire Service in Canada Needs to Get Behind Residential Fire Sprinklers.ʺ Fire Fighting in Canada. 2010. <http://www.firefightingincanada.com/content/view/1338/213/>. Athavaley, Anjali. ʺMandating Fire Sprinklers for the Home WSJ.com.ʺ The Wall Street Journal. September 18 2008. Web <http://online.wsj.com/article/sb122170150213450731.html>. Bénichou, N., D. Yung, and G.V. Hadjisophocleous. Impact of Fire Department Response and Mandatory Sprinkler Protection on Life Risks in Residential Communities. NRC. 1999. CBC Marketplace. Sprinkler Systems and Nursing Homes. <http://www. cbc.ca/marketplace/2010/burning_question/sprinkler_laws.html> Centre for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. (CDC). Fire Death and Injuries: Fact Sheet. < http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/fireprevention/fires factsheet.html> Fire Performance of Houses. NRC. January 2008. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 2

Fire Experience, Smoke Alarms and Sprinklers in Canadian Houses: CMHC Research to 2005. Technical Series 05 107, CMHC. April 2005. Ford, Jim. 15 Years of Built in Automatic Fire Sprinklers: The Scottsdale Experience. Scottsdale Rural/Metro Fire Department. Hall, John R. Jr. U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. February 2010. Hall, John R. Jr. U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment. Fire Analysis and Research, NFPA. January 2009. Hall, John R. Jr. U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment. Fire Analysis and Research, NFPA. August 2005 February 2010. Hall, John R. Jr. U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment. Fire Analysis and Research, NFPA. June 2007. Home Fire Protection, Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems Save Lives. U.S. Fire Administration. February 2008. Home Fire Sprinkler Systems: Separating Fact from Fiction. Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. Home Fire Sprinklers: Building for Life. Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. Koffel, William E. Reliability of Automatic Sprinkler Systems. Alliance for Fire and Smoke Containment and Control, Inc. September 2005. Marotte, Bertrand. ʺFire Rips through Montreal Apartment, Killing Four.ʺ The Globe and Mail. March 28, 2010. <http://license.icopyright.net/user/ viewfreeuse.act?fuid=nzcwotmzmq%3d%3d>. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAF), Sprinklers and On Site Sewage Systems: Public Consultation, February 2008. Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs Position Paper: Residential Fire Sprinklers. Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs. Potworowski, J. Andre. The Transformation of the National Building Code of Canada: from Prescriptions to Objectives. University of Ottawa. March 2010. Proulx, Guylène. Evacuation from a Single Family House. NRC. July 2009. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 3

Reducing Fatal Fires in New York State s New One and Two Family Homes: Is Mandating the Installation of Fire Sprinkler Systems the Best Course of Action? New York State Builders Association (NYSBA), Research and Education Foundation, Inc. October 2007. Residential Fire Sprinklers Receive Landslide Support. International Residential Code Fire Sprinkler Coalition. September 21, 2008. Residential Fire Sprinklers: A Report on Vancouver s 10 Year Statistics on Residential Fire Sprinklers (Presentation). Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. 2000. Rohr, Kimberly D. U.S. Experience with Sprinklers. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. November 2003. Sprinkler Performance Was Less Than Optimal or Sprinklers Could Not Have Been Expected To Control The Fire. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. Sprinkler Successes. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. Sprinkler Lobby All Wet? The Truth about Fire Sprinklers. Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association. Tracey, Sean A. Residential Fire Sprinklers: A Win Win Win Proposition for Homeowners, Builders, & Municipalities. Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition. USFA Position Paper Residential Fire Sprinklers. United States Fire Administration. March 28, 2008. Update on Sprinklered Dwellings. Vancouver Fire & Rescue Services. <http://vancouver.ca/fire/fire_prev/sprinkler.html>. Williams, C. et al. Effectiveness of Sprinklers in Residential Premises. UK Building Research Establishment Ltd. February 2004. Technologies: Ahrens, Marty. Smoke Alarms in U.S. Home Fires. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. September 2009. Aikman, Alastair J. M. Report of the Part 3 Joint Task Group on Automatic Sprinkler Systems to the Standing Committee on Fire Protection and the Standing Committee on Occupancy. NRC. March 1993. Are Fire Sprinklers Green? Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition, FM Global. 2009. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 4

Automatic Sprinklers: A 10 Year Study. Rural/Metro Fire Department produced in cooperation with Home Fire Sprinkler Coalition, 1997. Bukowski, Richard et al. Performance of Home Smoke Alarms: Analysis of the Response of Several Available Technologies in Residential Fire Settings. NIST. February 2008. Bwalya, A.C., M.A. Sultan and N. Bénichou. Towards the Development of Design Fires for Residential Buildings: Literature Review and Survey Results of Fire Loads in Canadian Homes. NRC. July 2004. Changes to ON Building Code re Sprinklers. Letter written to Mr. D. Brezer. Canadian Institute of Plumbing & Heating. March 1, 2010. Engineering Guide to Application of Risk Assessment in Fire Protection Design. Society of Fire Protection Engineers. October 2005. Fire Performance of Houses. Phase 1. Study of Unprotected Floor Assemblies in Basement Fire Scenarios. Summary Report. NRC. December 15, 2008. Fire Sprinklers in New Construction. International Association of Fire Chief s. March 13, 2008. Garis, Len. Residential Fire Sprinklers. City of Surrey Fire Service BC. Hall, John R. Jr. An Analysis of Automatic Sprinkler System Reliability Using Current Data. NFPA. February 2, 2006. Hazell, Mike. NFPA s Fire Sprinkler Initiative, Study: Sprinklers Proven to Protect the Environment. January 19, 2010. Home Fire Protection: Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems. Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Fire Administration. August 2004. Hjorth, Bo. Corrosion in Sprinkler Pipe Not One but Many Problems. AlbaCon AB. Integration of Residential Sprinklers with Water Supply Systems: A Survey of Twenty U.S. Communities. NFPA. September 2009. Isman, Kenneth E. What s New in NDPA 13 2010. National Fire Sprinkler Association. 2010. Kanellakos, Steve. Residential Fire Sprinklers. Report to: Community and Protective Services Committee. February 24, 2009. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 5

Madrzykowski, D. and R.P. Fleming. ʺResidential Sprinkler Systems.ʺ Fire Protection Handbook, 20 th Edition. Volume 2, Chapter 6, Section 16. NFPA. 2008. Madrzykowski, D. and R. P. Fleming. Review of Residential Sprinkler Systems: Research and Standards. Federal Emergency Management Administration, U.S. Fire Administration. December 2002. Milke, James A. National Residential Fire Sprinkler Initiative. United States Fire Administration. May 5, 2003. National Fire Incident Reporting System 5.0, Complete Reference Guide. U.S. Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. January, 2004. NFPA Announces Coordinated Campaign to Increase Number of Homes Protected by Sprinklers. NFPA. October 6, 2008. NRC Report Reveals New Composite Floor Assemblies in Homes Fail 67% Sooner than Older Homes. Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association. December 16, 2008. Presence and Type of Detection Systems Residential Fires Fremont FD. California State Fire Marshal, National Fire Incident Reporting System. April 26, 2010. Residential Sprinkler Systems: When Will Canada Step Up? CFSA Newsletter. Fall 2004. Residential Sprinklers ISO Fact Sheet. Insurance Services Office, Inc. Richardson, J.K. An Assessment of the Performance of Automatic Sprinkler Systems. NRC. November 1983. Ren, N., C. Do, and A. W. Marshall. A Comprehensive Methodology for Evaluation Sprinkler Discharge Characteristics. Su, J.Z. et al. Fire Detection and Suppression Studies at Kemano Village. NRC. January 2002. The Many Uses of the National Fire Incident Reporting System. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. June 1997. Tracey, Sean A., Supporting Material National Code Change Proposal for Residential Fire Sprinklers. NRC, August 13, 2007. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 6

Statistics: Firefighter Injuries, Topical Fire Research Series, Volume 2, Issue 1. U.S. Fire Administration. March 2002. Civilian Fire Injuries in Residential Buildings in 2005. Topical Fire Research Series. Volume 8, Issue 3. U.S. Fire Administration. March 2008. 2008 Annual Report. Orange County Fire Authority. A Few Facts at the Household Level. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. July 2009. A Profile of Fire in the United States, 1989 1998, 12 th Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. August 2001. A Profile of Fire in the United States, 1992 2001, 13 th Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. October 2004. A Profile of Fire in the United States, 1995 2004, 14 th Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. February 2008. A Profile of Fire in the United States, 2003 2007, 14 th Edition. Federal Emergency Management Agency, United States Fire Administration, National Fire Data Center. January 2010. Annual Statistical Fire Report, 2001 2003. Office of the Fire Commissioner. Ahrens, Marty. Trends and Patterns of U.S. Fire Losses. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. September, 2007. Ahrens, Marty. Trends and Patterns of U.S. Fire Losses in 2008. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. September 2009. Alberta Fire Commissioner s Statistical Report. Alberta Emergency Management Agency. 2006. Badger, Stephen G. Large Loss Fires in the United States 2008. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. November 2009. Badger, Stephen G. Catastrophic Multiple Death Fires for 2008. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. September 2009. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 7

Canadian Housing Fire Statistics. Socio economic Series 04 004. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Commission. August 2004. Demographic and Other Characteristics Related to Fire Deaths or Injuries. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. March 2010. Fatality Notices. U.S. Fire Administration Memorial Database. <http:// www.usfa.dhs.gov/applications/ffmem/ffmem_results.jsp?p_last_name=&p_f irst_na>. Fire Losses in Canada, Annual Reports 1986 2002. Council of Canadian Fire Marshals and Fire Commissioners. 1988 2007. Flynn, Jennifer D. Characteristics of Home Fire Victims. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. March 2010. Karter, Michael J. Jr. Fire Loss in the United States 2008. Fire Analysis and Research Division, NFPA. January 2010. Residential Fire Sprinkler Activation Report A Database of Residential Fire Sprinklers. U.S. Fire Administration. 2007. Year To Date Summary Statistics (Provisional) On Duty Firefighter Fatalities in the United States. March 31, 2010. on Housing Sprinkler Systems Page F 8