Skip to: Content


Services

Posts Tagged ‘NFPA’

History Repeats Itself in Brazil’s Nightclub Deaths

Thursday, March 7th, 2013

by Christopher Chwedyk

On January 26, 235 people were killed in a nightclub fire in Santa Maria, Brazil. Most of the dead were college students 18 to 21 years old. According to the Associated Press report, the Kiss nightclub was overcrowded with over 1,000 people and the building had no fire alarm, no sprinklers, and no fire escapes. When a performing band member tried to put out the fire that had been started by pyrotechnics, the extinguisher did not work.

Many in the press were quick to blame the shortcomings of Brazil’s regulatory structure – administrative flaws, inspection flaws, and ignorance of existing building code violations. Reporters raised questions about the ability of Brazilian authorities to be up to the task of ensuring the safety of those attending next year’s World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.

This February, we marked the tenth anniversary of the Station Nightclub fire in West Warrick, RI and the E2 Nightclub deaths in Chicago. These tragedies share striking similarities with the recent deaths in Brazil, such as overcrowded conditions, blocked exits, and toxic fumes. Both the Kiss and the Station nightclub had ceilings covered in sound-insulating foam made from combustible material that ignited with the pyrotechnics. In all three incidents, most of the victims died of asphyxiation.

Three different cities; three very similar incidents, resulting in death. We can compare the various event details to those as far back as Boston’s Cocoanut Grove fire in 1942 that killed more than 400 people in a very similar fashion. It was, in fact, the Coconut Grove nightclub fire that led to the establishment of what later became the NFPA Life Safety Code, now followed in all 50 states and in many parts of the world. We think that we learn from our mistakes, and put in place laws and ordinances to prevent such catastrophes, yet they are often repeated needlessly.

One such proposed solution to learn from past mistakes would be to install fire suppression systems in most existing buildings, as is already advocated in many codes for new buildings. Shortly after the Station Nightclub fire, members of Congress introduced the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act to financially assist building owners in retrofitting their properties with fire sprinklers using tax incentives. Between then and now, according to the Congressional Fire Services Institute, fires in the United States have killed nearly 30,000, injured almost 100,000, and caused countless billions of dollars in property damage. Ten years later, Congress has failed to pass the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act.

Sprinklers, of course, would not have prevented the E2 Nightclub deaths. In fact, the problem is not just with poor regulation or lack of enforcement, it is about a cultural willingness to look the other way. We see it in the attitude of those in the construction industry dealing with the imposition of laws and rules they do not understand or fail to appreciate. How many times do we hear people complain that they are being forced to comply with a regulation when many others do not comply and never get caught? We see it in the current debate regarding gun violence and the potential loss of perceived freedom verses the death of the innocent. We also see it in the issues surrounding climate change and protecting the environment. The clock is ticking toward a time when our abuse of the Earth may become irreversible, yet it is easier to look the other way and keep repeating mistakes than dealing with the more difficult task of learning from those mistakes and doing things differently.

Building codes are, in general, a reaction to and a direct result of tragedies. They exist to protect the health, safety and welfare of human beings. We need to understand them, appreciate them, and yes, even abide by them willingly, with the understanding that without all three of those actions, we are likely to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Related Posts:

Life Safety, Code and Politics – The Residential Sprinkler Debate

Tuesday, March 23rd, 2010

By Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA

In mid-February of this year, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) released a legislative update on their Fire Sprinkler Initiative Project – “Bringing Safety Home” e-mail blast, titled “Are Home Fire Sprinkler Opponents Threatening Safety In Your State?” Apparently, at least a dozen states in the U.S. have proposed state legislation that would restrict a community’s ability to make its own decision about whether to enforce the requirement to provide fire sprinklers in all new one-and-two family dwelling units. These states include Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. In Kentucky, a circuit court recently rejected a bid to allow local governments to mandate the installation of fire sprinkler systems in new home construction.

The NFPA Building Construction (5000) and Life Safety (101) Codes have required sprinklers in all new one-and-two family dwellings since 2006. However, for the first time the 2009 International Residential Code (IRC) now contains a section R313.2 stating that “Effective January 1, 2011, an automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and-two family dwellings.” This provision was passed at the 2008 International Code Council hearings in a somewhat controversial manner (many fire officials were at the hearings only to vote on this particular issue) and attempts were made prior to the code’s publication to rescind this requirement, to no avail. Much of the current legislation mentioned above would specifically prohibit the inclusion of one-and-two family sprinkler provisions statewide, rather than allow each municipality to enact “more stringent” provisions than enacted by the state, as has been normally and traditionally allowed. In addition to the states already mentioned, Ohio has postponed adoption of the 2009 International Building Code (IBC) and IRC until at least June of 2011. Minnesota has decided to skip the adoption of the 2009 edition of the codes altogether.

Now, this reaction is clearly an attempt by legislation to ease the perceived threat to initiating new home construction in a slow economy. At the same time, it brings up questions regarding the very essence of why the model building codes are written in the first place. Shorty after this NFPA update appeared, David Collins of The Preview Group sent out a questionnaire to several architects asking them to weigh-in on the issue by choosing one of three possible responses:

  • A. I don’t see this as any different from any other modifications that states and local jurisdictions make to the codes.
  • B. This is the type of political pressure that a powerful group can exert locally to prevent change (regardless of whether it is right or wrong).
  • C. We (as design professionals) should work with our partners and ICC to see that codes don’t wander too far from a path where consistent regulations can be supported and adopted.

The consensus from this small group wat that ‘C’ was the best answer, since the extraordinary efforts being mounted by opponents regarding one sentence in a building code clearly negates ‘A’, and ‘B’ is just a passive acceptance. The discussion then became one of suggesting that design professionals become more actively involved in the code making process. However, none of these responses, it would appear, gets to the heart of the matter – does this provision in the code actually make sense?

The general argument for providing sprinkler systems in homes is that most fires occur there and a significant reduction in fire loss and fire deaths would be accomplished if sprinklers were mandated in the code. One community that has had this sprinkler provision mandated for several years is Scottsdale, AZ. Their figures show that fire sprinklers in single-family homes reduced potential fire loss by 95% in the period between 1986 and 2001, saving at least a dozen lives. Another study, recently released by NFPA, entitled “U.S. Experience with Sprinklers and Other Automatic Fire Extinguishing Equipment“, concludes that the death rate per fire in sprinklered homes is lowered by 83% and that damage per fire is lowered by 40-70%. As far as increased costs are concerned, a 2008 report by Newhouse Partners concluded that the average cost of installing sprinkler systems by home-builders was only $1.61 per sprinklered square-foot.

The opposing side points to potential accidental sprinkler activation, the failure rate of non-maintained residential sprinklers, as well as issues related to the challenges faced by rural areas and limited water availability. Another school of thought is that passive fire resistance (construction using better fire-resistive materials and compartmentalizing floors of a building into fire areas) is superior to relying on active sprinkler systems. This has certainly been expressed in Chicago, for example, where it is unlikely that sprinklers will ever be mandated for any buildings under five stories, much less single family homes – this despite the fact that recent residential high rise fires (especially the Streeterville fire last December) have brought some question as to whether the City’s Life Safety Evaluation system for pre-1975 buildings has allowed too many existing residential buildings to be left without sprinklers. Ironically, politicians voted to extend the deadline for installing improved communication systems in residential high rises from 2012 to 2015, again as part of a perceived need to save taxpayer money.

There are no easy answers to these questions. However, the debate does bring into focus the fact that codes are laws and laws are made by politicians, whether appointed or voted into office. The idea that model codes are always based on good judgment and common sense for the common good and are enacted to save lives, or that they are always accepted without question, is simply not the case. The residential sprinkler issue is a prime example of where the prescriptive method of code compliance and the adoption of model code language appear to fall short of stated intentions. That being said, many believe that it should be up to design professionals and specifiers to look beyond the minimum requirements of the codes and, in some situations, to take some responsibility and recommend a higher standard by which to apply these requirements.

About the Author:
Christopher E. Chwedyk, CSI, AIA is a licensed architect, Director and Chief Code Consultant of The Code Group at Burnham Nationwide in Chicago. He was previously the principal of Gage-Babcock and Associates; a firm specialized in fire protection engineering. With more than 32 years of experience in the architectural field, Mr. Chwedyk has performed numerous code compliance plan reviews for the City of Chicago and other municipailites. He has a BArch degree from UIC and a Masters of Project Management (MPM) from the Keller Graduate School of Management. An adjunct faculty member of Harper College since 1998, Chris teaches courses on building codes and construction drawings.

Related Posts:

"Burnham is a first-rate operation. I rely on them to coordinate many of the permit-related tasks that I am too busy to do myself. I draw on their knowledge on changing municipal requirements, proactive problem solving and would definitely recommend them to others."
Rich Neubauer,
McDonald's
"I've had great success with Burnham for permit expediting, and recently learned they offer code consulting. They are great in meetings and provide excellent reports supported by detailed research and experience. I will use them whenever I have code issues on a project."
Jeff Kennedy,
Centaur Construction
"I like Burnham because their response time is terrific. They're professional with a systematic approach and solid corporate infrastructure - and their web-based system shows me exactly what is happening with my permits at all times."
Tom McCloskey,
The Related Companies, L.P.
"Working with Burnham makes the best use of my resources. It would be too costly for me to have staff who know as much as they do about the permit process."
Mike Moravek,
The John Buck Company
"Burnham is always a vital part of our Project Team. Their level of service and professionalism far surpasses their competition. The first call I make when a new project comes in is to Burnham."
Gregg Navins,
OMARA Organization, Inc
"We have tried other permit services in the past but only Burnham delivers the level of detail, follow through and accountability necessary to be successful in today's complex permit acquisition arena."
Dave Morgan,
The Body Shop
"Speed and efficiency are paramount, we aren't looking for just another layer of project management. Burnham gets the process due to their strong knowledge of jurisdictional requirements, and excellent working relationships with municipal staffs."
Glenn D. Middleton,
Design Forum
"We have come to rely heavily on Burnham's expertise... they have developed a professional consulting practice that we are proud to be associated with."
Michael T Clune,
Clune Construction Company