Building Code Change Proposals:
The National Assn. of State Fire Marshals
By Richard Schulte
Schulte & Associates, Evanston, Ill.
The American public (and America's firefighters) have never been safer from fire than they are today. While the number of civilian fire fatalities which occur in the U.S. fluctuates each year, the composition of fire fatalities by occupancy type occurring is fairly stable. Roughly two-thirds of the fire fatalities which occur in the U.S. are the result of fires in one- and two-family dwellings, and more than 80% of the total number of fire fatalities in the U.S. occur in residential occupancies (one- and two-family dwellings, multi-family residential occupancies and hotels). We also know that fire fatalities in residential occupancies can be virtually eliminated with the installation of the combination of residential sprinklers and smoke detectors.
With respect to fires in commercial (nonresidential) buildings, where sprinkler protection will be more than likely be installed in buildings of any significant size, the number of fire fatalities which occur annually in the U.S. is typically 200 or less. In 2005, the National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA) estimated that only 50 Americans died in fires. To put this number in perspective, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicates that 42,642 Americans died on our nation's highways. Meaning that the ratio of highway fatalities in 2006 to fire fatalities in commercial buildings in 2005 is 852 to 1. That's an amazing statistic isn't it? Given the statistics, it would be difficult to maintain that there is a significant fire safety problem in commercial buildings in the U.S., yet that is exactly what the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) has been telling the American public. The following passages are found on the NASFM website:
"It is rare for more than three persons to die in a fire, largely because most deadly fires occur in the home. But periodically, America suffers a truly major fire -- often in places of public assembly -- and when they occur, scores die. The deadliest structural fires were predictable and preventable. From the Our Lady of Angels elementary school to the Beverly Hills Supper Club and MGM Grand, hundreds of lives could have been saved by following well-understood rules.
NASFM's highest priority is protecting human life. Most of the association's initiatives are directed at preventing the most dangerous of residential fires. However, NASFM believes that the scenario for the next major fire in a public place is reasonably predictable and preventable. The association is especially concerned about large retail stores containing significant quantities of easily combustible fuel, with multiple ignition sources, inadequate exiting, and insufficient sprinkler systems, located on congested thoroughfares likely to hamper fire and rescue workers. NASFM will seek to work with those industries presenting this level of hazard, insurers, local code authorities and the news media to identify and prevent the next major fire."
NASFM has been active in the building code development arena of as late, and has submitted numerous code change proposals to make our model building codes. The following excerpts are some of the justifications provided for NASFM proposals to amend the International Building Code:
"The National Assn. of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) . . . has concluded that in many instances the fire protection requirements in the new model building codes are significantly weaker than the requirements found in the older regional model building codes. The arbitrary weakening of these critical requirements must be reversed promptly. To do otherwise is to substantially increase the probability of significant fire losses in office buildings, healthcare facilities, schools and other major structures built to these new specifications." Code Change Proposal G47-04/05
"NASFM believes that this finding alone underscores the critical importance of redundancy, because no single element of fire protection has ever been judged to be sufficiently reliable to ensure public safety, especially given the extraordinary fuel loads found in average office buildings, retail stores, storage facilities, schools, healthcare facilities and residences." Code Change Proposal G55-04/05
"The absence of a proper technical basis for "trade-offs" is sufficient justification to call for fire-rating requirements to remain stringent. NASFM is sympathetic to the notion of economic incentives to achieve higher levels of safety -- which is the justification for trade-offs. But, NASFM sees no value in a system of incentives that allows reductions in the levels of safety, or encourages building owners to meet minimum levels of fire protection. Trade-offs between active and passive technologies make no more sense than allowing stronger bumpers in exchange for less effective brakes on a car. While economic realities make the need for some tradeoffs inevitable, the pendulum has swung too far in favor of economics over safety. Trade-offs that allow for the significant reduction of passive fire protection materials in order to install sprinklers are not supported by the science and clearly do not serve the public interest." Code Change Proposal G55-04/05
"Without a technical basis to justify the severe weakening of these public safety standards, and with so much evidence to the contrary, NASFM believes that the ICC has little choice but to adopt this proposal without delay. Even the most open and diverse process does not justify placing narrow economic interests above common sense and dedication to public safety." Code Change Proposal G55-04/05
"NASFM finds it problematic that the base allowable heights and areas were developed using an arbitrary approach that used the least rigorous, i.e., the greatest allowable, heights and areas of any of the three regional model building codes . . . . However, the decision must have a technical basis." Code Change Proposal G92-04/05
"These changes were made without a technical basis, at a time when the U.S. was experiencing an increase in the rate of firefighter deaths attributed to structural collapse, and after the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health issued an alert regarding the "Prevention of Injuries and Deaths of Fire Fighters Due to Structural Collapse," which explicitly drew attention to the adequacy of passive fire protection." Code Change Proposal G92-04/05
"Trade-offs that allow for the significant increase in the height and area of buildings without accounting for real-world fire scenarios clearly do not serve the public interest." Code Change Proposal G92-04/05
"Public policy places a high value on the safety and security of emergency responders. A person who intentionally endangers a law enforcement officer faces imprisonment and fines. The net effect of reducing the hourly ratings of critical building elements is that firefighters may be at greater risk of death and injury from structural collapse. The fire-resistive construction requirements of critical areas must be restored to the previous levels, and may, along with greater requirements for active protection, require further upward adjustments as more is known about the fuel load in these occupancies." Code Change Proposal G139-04/05
"Tables 601 and 602, as currently written, allow for a significant reduction in the fire-resistive construction requirements of critical areas where automatic sprinklers are installed. It is the position of NASFM that such a significant reduction in fire-resistive construction requirements places too much of the fire burden on active fire suppression measures." Code Change Proposal G139-04/05
"These findings are particularly troubling when considering that the trade-offs permitted under Tables 601 and 602 substantially reduce passive fire protection without providing for levels of active fire protection sufficient to suppress real world fires in commercial and other occupancies." Code Change Proposal G139-04/05
"While sprinklers improve safety in most common building fires and prevent them from becoming large fires, the technical basis is not available to establish the sprinkler trade-off in current codes which allows for a lower fire rating to be used for structural components in sprinklered buildings." Code Change Proposal F23-04/05
"NASFM membership includes both fire and building code enforcement officials who are well familiar with the ways these tables are used by those who are committed to public safety and those who are not." Code Change Proposal G99-06/07
"In ideal circumstances, the best trained and equipped fire departments arrive at fires approximately 7 minutes after ignition of the fire. Most departments do not operate under ideal conditions." Code Change Proposal G99-06/07
"Based on responses from more than 8,400 fire departments, the study found that an estimated 73,000 firefighters serve in communities that protect 50,000 people or more, yet have fewer than four career firefighters assigned to first-due engine companies. With that staffing level, the first arriving company cannot safely start an interior attack on a structure fire and must wait for additional responders." Code Change Proposal G99-06/07
"More than a quarter million firefighters, mostly volunteers in rural communities, are involved in fighting structure fires, but lack formal training to do so safely." Code Change Proposal G99-06/07
"Automatic fire sprinklers absolutely save lives and protect property, but they are far from perfect. . . . However, failure to properly maintain systems creates problems, as with any fire protection equipment or system. . . . What makes sprinklers so valuable is that they often perform exceptionally well even when not properly maintained.
. . . . While some of the reductions or eliminations are justified, many were made without much thought, as we have seen with the merging of the three legacy codes. Eliminating or reducing backup or redundant fire protection in many larger buildings can create unsafe conditions for both occupants and first responders." Code Change Proposal G99-06/07
"More than 4 years after the government announced the recall of 35 million defective fire sprinkler heads, nearly two-thirds remain in use, millions more have been recalled and a leading sprinkler head manufacturer reports that some claims of property loss have been made related to fires in buildings found to contain the recalled heads. . . . In many jurisdictions, fire code officials lack the authority to require the replacement of recalled sprinkler heads which remain formally listed and therefore technically in compliance with the Model Codes." Code Change Proposal G99-06/07
"A firefighter is more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to a fire than to be crushed by a structural collapse caused by that fire." Code Change Proposal G100-06/07
"According to NFPA, between 1999 and 2002, an estimated average of 1,760 religious and funeral property structures fires were reported to U.S. fire departments per year -- all but 4% in religious occupancies. The fires caused an annual average of one civilian death, 20 civilian injuries and $96.3 million in direct property damage." Code Change Proposal G101-06/07
"In the event of significant fires in Group B [business (office)] occupancies, large numbers of persons are likely to require rescues. More than 17 million noninstitutionalized adults between the ages of 16 and 64 possess a sensory, physical or mental disability. Of these, about 36% -- or about 6.1 million -- are employed and would be likely to require rescues in the event of significant fires." Code Change Proposal G102-06/07
"Every new office building constructed in compliance with the Group B [business (office)] tabular values in Table 503 is an experiment in safety. In 2004, office construction resumed the annual rate of growth disrupted for 3 years by the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the number of buildings over 25 stories doubled from 3% of all office construction in 2000 to 6% in 2004. Taller, larger office buildings -- and the workers who use them -- will be more challenging to protect from fire." Code Change Proposal G102-06/07
"School fires are common. . . .In 2002, some 14,300 fires at nonadult schools were reported to fire departments. About 6,000 were structural fires. Reported property damage was in excess of $103 million. There were no deaths, but with 122 injuries, the rate of injuries per 1,000 school fires is relatively high with 22 per 1,000 school fires versus 14.4 for other nonresidential occupancies. " Code Change Proposal G102-06/07
"Every new hospital, nursing home and mental health facility constructed in compliance with the Group I-2 tabular values in Table 503 is an experiment in safety." Code Change Proposal G105-06/07
"One would think that after the many serious hotel fires in the past 50 years, the problem would be solved. But one would be wrong. In mid January 2006, a fire at an unsprinklered Holiday Inn in Marietta, GA, left one person dead and 20 injured. The fire required more than 100 firefighters using ladder trucks to control the fire and initiate rescues -- a level of response not possible in many communities." Code Change Proposal G107-06/07
"At the Marietta hotel fire, automatic fire sprinklers might have changed the outcome. But sprinklers are far from perfect." Code Change Proposal G107-06/07
"This extraordinary building safety record is due in large part to the Legacy Codes' fire protection requirements, which governed the construction of most apartment buildings, fraternity and sorority houses and other Group R-2 occupancies that exist today. In reducing and modifying those well-tested requirements, the International Building Code (IBC) proceeded from what we know to be safe to something unproven." Code Change Proposal G108-06/07
"NASFM understands the economic benefits to developers of being able to construct much larger buildings with less built-in fire-resistance on a defined parcel of land. But the economic benefits to developers do not justify the increased risk to occupants and emergency responders." Code Change Proposal G122-06/07
"It makes little sense to await the loss of life and property before we consider returning to proven safety practices. In fact, "waiting and seeing" begs the question, "How many lives must be lost to justify a return to what we know to be safe?" Our intuitive presumption would be that making buildings larger, both in height and area, with less built-in passive fire-resistive protection and the use greater use of combustible materials can only result in greater property loss and the potential for greater loss of life. We all agree that one life lost is one too many. So let us prevent the loss of that one life." Code Change Proposal G122-06/07
Given the highway fatality statistics for the U.S., many will understand and probably agree that it's difficult to get too "worked up" about the "fire problem" in commercial buildings in U.S. as NASFM apparently does. However, it is not too difficult to understand why some might get "worked up" over many of the statements made by NASFM in their justifications for their code change proposals.
In the substantiation for code change proposal G139-04/05, NASFM implies that anyone who disagrees with their viewpoint "intentionally endangers a law enforcement officer" and should face "imprisonment and fines." That's a rather novel way of making a case against reductions in the requirements for passive fire protection when sprinkler protection is provided and for more restrictive fire safety requirements in building codes, but the premise of this statement is in error. Do reductions in the requirements for passive fire protection included in the International Building Code (when compared with the requirements contained in the its predecessors, the regional model building codes), actually endanger emergency responders or does the IBC actually provide greater protection for both emergency responders and the general public. It's my opinion that NASFM has got it wrong and that the increased use of active fire protection, in particular sprinkler protection, mandated by the IBC will result in an improvement in fire safety statistics. One only needs to look at the virtual elimination of both civilian and firefighter fatalities in sprinklered buildings, particularly residential occupancies, when sprinkler protection is provided. It's not too difficult to conclude from the data that sprinkler protection is a firefighter's best friend.
In their arguments against "trade-offs" in passive fire protection when sprinkler protection is provided, NASFM states that there is no technical justification for the "trade-offs". When I was in the fire service [San Jose Fire Dept. (SJFD), 1980-82], the fire service actively supported the installation of sprinkler protection. This support was expressed by proposals to make sprinkler installations less expensive in order to encourage building owners to install sprinkler protection. Of course, one way to significantly reduce the cost of sprinkler installations is allow reductions in the requirements for passive fire protection when sprinkler protection is provided.
In the 25 years since I left the fire service, something in the fire service has changed. Today's fire service seems to have forgotten about the days when 90+ story office towers were constructed without sprinkler protection (i.e., the John Hancock Building and the Standard Oil Building in Chicago and the World Trade Center towers in New York) and when homes were constructed without either smoke detectors or sprinkler protection. The principal reason why high rise buildings and single-family dwellings are protected by sprinklers today are the "trade-offs" allowed when sprinkler protection is provided.
The reason why the "trade-offs" that NASFM rails so strongly against are included in our model building codes were the facts that passive fire protection (other than structural fire protection) is simply ineffective in preventing fire fatalities and that the only way that providing sprinkler protection in buildings would be accepted was to offer to "trade" effective active fire protection for ineffective passive fire protection. In effect, the fire service accepted sprinkler "trade-offs" 35 years ago in order to get sprinkler protection and now the fire service seems to be reneging on the deal.
The justification for "reneging on the deal" is that sprinkler systems are not 100% reliable, but the fire protection profession, including the fire service, knew that 35 years ago. Despite the fact sprinkler protection is not 100% reliable, a major fire has never occurred in a high rise building protected throughout by a sprinkler system in the U.S. Reports on our experience with sprinkler protection in residential occupancies in Scottsdale, AZ, and Prince George's County (written by members of the fire service) have documented that the failure rate of sprinkler systems in residential occupancies in these communities is less than 1%.
According to the NFPA study on sprinkler system reliability published in August 2005, two-thirds of the sprinkler system failures that occur can be attributed to closed water supply valves. Given this, correcting at least two-thirds of the problem of sprinkler system failures should be a relatively simple task-sprinkler system water supply valves need to be periodically inspected to verify that the system is functional. And who is responsible for verifying that water supply control valves are open and the sprinkler system is ready to perform its function? Yes, that's correct, the fire service (i.e., the state fire marshals who make up NASFM). Rather than complain that sprinkler systems are not sufficiently reliable to justify reductions in passive fire protection when sprinkler protection is provided, why doesn't the NASFM address the problem of closed water supply valves? I suppose it's simply easier to "point the finger" at someone else than admit that the fire service (including the members of NASFM) haven't been diligently enforcing the fire prevention code.
Is there a technical justification for providing sprinkler protection in lieu of passive fire protection or were the authors of code changes which allowed such "trade-offs" and the code officials, including fire service officials, who voted to support such changes in code development hearings simply irrational and foolish? Based on the statements made by the NASFM excerpted above, it's not too difficult to conclude NASFM's answer to that question. However, there is a strong technical basis for the "trade-offs." One has only to review the proceedings of code development meetings in the 1970s and 1980s, symposiums on fire protection for high rise buildings sponsored by the General Services Administration and others in the early 1970s and the NFPA "Decision Tree" (also developed in the 1970s) to find the technical basis for this fundamental concept included in our present model building codes.
It is unfortunate that the substantiation for the code change proposals submitted by NASFM demonstrate such a lack of understanding of basic and fundamental fire protection concepts on which our model building codes are based. While it is understandable that trade organizations such as the Alliance for Fire and Smoke Containment and Control (AFSCC) do their best to twist the facts regarding the reliability and capability of sprinkler protection, at least that's my opinion of the AFSCC, there is no excuse for the NASFM not knowing the history behind the sprinkler "trade-offs" and the technical basis for sprinkler "trade-offs." There is also no excuse for the NASFM not addressing the issue of the lack of enforcement of the maintenance provisions contained in the model fire prevention codes, including the inspection of sprinkler water supply valves.
Based on the statements made in the substantiation of its code change proposals and in code development meetings, NASFM has branded itself as a "hard-core radical" organization which lacks a basic knowledge of the fundamentals of building fire protection.
If only its apparent zeal regarding building fire safety could be redirected to the issue of highway safety (also a life safety issue), the organization might actually accomplish its "highest priority" -- "protecting human life." Proposing that America spend even more on fire safety than it is already spending, without regard to whether or not any actual benefits will accrue from the increase in expenditures, is both irrational and foolish.
Would more Americans be alive today if we had reallocated some of the immense sums of money we spend on fire safety in commercial buildings to the enforcement of our traffic laws? The answer to that question appears to be obvious. Isn't life safety supposed to be about saving lives, or is life safety only about saving lives from fire? The answer to these questions should be something that the NASFM should spend some time considering.
Note: The excerpts from NASFM's website can be found at www.firemarshals.org/mission/catastrophic
Richard Schulte is a 1976 graduate of the fire protection engineering program at the Illinois Institute of Technology. After working in various positions within the fire protection field, he formed Schulte & Associates in 1988. His consulting experience includes work on the Sears Tower and numerous other notable structures. He has also acted as an expert witness in the litigation involving the fire at the New Orleans Distribution Center. He can be contacted by sending e-mail to rschulte@plumbingengineer.com.