Fire Safety “Double Talk”
By Richard Schulte
Schulte & Associates, Evanston, Ill.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, debates raged over whether sprinkler protection should be provided in high-rise buildings. In the middle 1970s, provisions that required smoke detectors in residential occupancies were included in building codes. The 1970s also saw the development of special fire safety provisions for covered mall buildings and atriums. Research into the development of residential sprinklers also began in the mid-1970s. In other words, a revolution in the field of building fire safety and building fire protection began roughly 40 years ago in the U.S.
Despite the fact that Americans and America’s firefighters have never been safer from fire than they are today, some fire safety advocates continue to insist that our new buildings are “unsafe and dangerous” from fire. If you listen to these advocates, you would think that the revolution in building fire safety never occurred and that the leading killer of Americans is fire. The fact is that we already know what fire safety features provide effective fire protection and which do not, yet lobbyists for manufacturers of ineffective fire protection are constantly working to persuade us otherwise.
Let’s take a look at some of the “double-talk” that we hear from various sources on fire safety.
“Despite all of the emphasis that NFPA and the fire service have placed on better measures to protect the lives of firefighters, the disturbing fact is that firefighting is just as dangerous a job today as it has ever been.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August 2005 issue.
“The numbers of firefighter fatalities are down significantly from the late 1970s when it was not uncommon to have well over 100 firefighter on-duty deaths a year. (There were 173 firefighter fatalities in 1978.)” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August, 2007 issue.
“According to NFPA’s “U.S. Firefighter Fatalities Report,” 103 on-duty firefighter deaths occurred in the U.S. in 2004, and the trend in firefighter fatalities is definitely getting worse after a period where there was some tangible improvement.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August 2005 issue.
“Eighty-nine firefighters died while on duty in 2006, an increase of two from the year before.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August, 2007 issue.
Is Mr. Shannon correct about the fact “that firefighting is just as dangerous a job today as it has ever been?” Or is Mr. Shannon correct that “the numbers of firefighter fatalities are down significantly from late 1970s?” Actually, it’s the latter and that’s good news.
* * * * *
“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.” James A. Burns, National Assn. of State Fire Marshals, Washington, DC, IBC Code Change G92-04/05.
“The willingness of firefighters to risk their own lives to save others must never be used as an excuse to take unnecessary risks. Firefighters are highly respected for being willing to risk their own lives to save others, but that cannot justify taking unnecessary risks in situations where there is no one to save and nothing to be gained. In too many cases firefighters lose their lives while trying to save property that is already lost or to rescue victims who are already dead. While these efforts are valiant, they are also futile. Individual firefighters who take unnecessary risks, or fail to follow standard safety practices, endanger their own lives as well as the lives of other firefighters who are depending on them or who might have to try to rescue them.” FEMA Firefighter Life Safety Summit Initial Report, April 14, 2004.
“However, a particular emphasis must be placed on efforts to keep firefighters healthy . . . . The importance of these programs to reducing firefighter fatalities is brought home when we examine the largest single cause of firefighter on-duty fatalities--heart attacks.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August 2005 issue.
“A special NFPA report on firefighter fatalities notes that over the 10-year period studied in the NFPA report, 440 firefighters--43.7% of those who died on the job--experienced sudden cardiac death (heart attacks and other heart-related sudden death), typically triggered by stress or exertion. . . . In its report of firefighter fatalities for 2004, NFPA reports that 47% of on-duty firefighter fatalities for that year were because of heart attacks, and consistently heart attacks have been the leading cause of deaths among firefighters.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August 2005 issue.
“Ensuring that firefighters are healthy before we ask them to take on this dangerous job might be the single biggest thing we can do to save firefighters’ lives.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Journal, July/August 2005 issue.
“If all of us who know otherwise are going to make any progress at reducing the unnecessary injuries and deaths of firefighters, our first job is to change the attitude of those who view every effort at advancing firefighter safety as a threat. Only when we have accomplished this will we have a chance to reduce substantially firefighter injuries and deaths.” Jim Shannon, National Fire Protection Assn. (NFPA), NFPA Fire Journal, July/August, 2007 issue.
“A firefighter is more likely to die in a traffic accident on the way to a fire than be crushed by a structural collapse caused by that fire.” John C. Dean, the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals, IBC Code Change G100-06/07.
“Firefighters take responsibility for their own safety. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has advised fire departments to refrain from sending firefighters into buildings if there are concerns about structural collapse. NASFM concurs with this advice from NIOSH, and encourages fire departments to understand the implications of the fire protection requirements in the IBC.” John C. Dean, the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals, IBC Code Change G122-06/07.
Obviously, it’s difficult to address a problem if we can’t agree on the main cause of the problem. Is the main cause of firefighter fatalities heart attacks, the lack of structural fire protection or traffic accidents? This time Mr. Shannon has got it correct--the biggest contributor to firefighter fatalities is heart attacks. Mr. Dean is also correct--firefighters should take “responsibility for their own safety.” Meaning that firefighters are responsible for their own good health.
You don’t need to be a medical professional to know the causes of heart disease and the risk factors. Obviously, firefighters who smoke, are overweight or who have high blood pressure have no business on the fire ground. In northern climates, men over the age of 40 are cautioned not to shovel snow in the winter because of the increased risk of a heart attack caused by intense physical exertion. That same precaution would also seem to be applicable to firefighters over the age of 40 and firefighting.
With respect to structural collapse, typically only a handful of fire fighters die each year as a result of structural collapse. (That’s a fact.) The NIOSH document referred to by Mr. Dean recommends the use of caution and common sense when conducting interior manual firefighting operations. Some, if not all, firefighter fatalities caused by structural collapse could be avoided by using exterior firefighting, rather than interior firefighting. Certainly, firefighters should heed the common sense recommendation contained in the Initial Report of the FEMA Firefighter Life Safety Summit quoted above.
* * * * *
"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.” John C. Dean, the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals, IBC Code Change G107-06/07.
“We have made enormous strides in reducing the loss of life and property in fires involving Group R-2 occupancies. But much is yet to be done. With hundreds of fire fatalities in Group R-2 occupancies each year, we should restore the Group R-2 tabular values in Table 503 as part of a broad strategy to further reduce the loss of life and property in Group R-2 occupancies . . . .” John C. Dean, the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals, IBC Code Change G108-06/07.
What Mr. Dean fails to acknowledge in these statements concerning occupant fire safety in residential occupancies is the near perfect fire fatality record of hotel/motel and multifamily residential occupancies protected by sprinklers. Given that the IBC require that new hotels and multifamily dwellings be provided with sprinkler protection, the comments made by Mr. Dean don’t really apply to new building construction. We’ve conquered the problem of fire in hotels/motels and multifamily dwellings-lings with the use of the combination of sprinklers and smoke detectors, but apparently the National Assn. of State Fire Marshals hasn’t heard the news yet.
* * * * *
“As a minimum, the limiting of the migration of smoke and toxic gases is essential to occupant safety and building damage mitigation, even with successful sprinkler activation. Automatic fire sprinklers are an effective method of preventing flashover during a building fire, however, not a method of limiting migrating smoke.” Vickie Lovell, Intercode Inc.; representing Air Movement and Control Assn. and International Firestop Council, Code Change FS19-01.
“A person using the corridor for emergency egress needs a tenable atmosphere for a period of 20 minutes. The typical temperature in a sprinklered fire is about 400°F due to the evaporative cooling effect of the water droplets.” Vickie Lovell, Intercode Inc.; representing Air Movement and Control Assn. and International Firestop Council, Code Change FS19-01.
“An arsonist used flammable liquid to ignite this house fire. A 21-year-old occupant was sleeping in a bedroom at the time of the incident. A second party poured gasoline over the sleeping occupant and in the bedroom before igniting the materials. The sleeping occupant received only minor burns from his contact with the flammable liquid. Total damage was contained to the room of origin as a result of a single sprinkler head activation. Extensive damage to the structure would have occurred along with a probable fire fatality if not for the installation of the [sprinkler] system.” (Case Study #6, The Scottsdale Report).
Let’s see, sprinklers are capable of maintaining the tenability in the room of origin in a flammable liquids fire where the flammable liquid is poured directly on a sleeping occupant and ignited, but the operation of sprinklers can’t maintain the tenability in rooms which are adjacent to the room of origin or on floors above or below the fire. Quite an interesting physical phenomena, wouldn’t you agree?
* * * * *
“. . . .a defined gap area of 0.1875 sq. in. (about the size of a pencil hole) through a wall will allow sufficient smoke migration to create an untenable atmosphere in an 8 ft. high x 44 in. wide corridor 40 ft. long in just over 20 minutes.” Richard Licht, 3M Co., IBC Code Change FS20-01.
“The other misconception is that the contractor should install firestop materials around a duct WITH a damper. Unless the duct with a damper is tested and listed that way, it is not appropriate.” Vickie Lovell, President, InterCode Inc., Delray Beach, FL, representing Air Movement and Control Assn. and 3M Co., IBC Code Change FS29-04/05.
If a gap just about the size of a pencil hole through a wall will permit an untenable atmosphere to develop in a corridor in just 20 minutes, wouldn’t the required clearance around a fire damper in a corridor wall also be a problem from a standpoint of smoke migration?
Separating fact from fiction in the fire safety field is almost as difficult as trying to separate fact from fiction in the political arena.
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.