Club Fires Spur Major Changes In Fire Codes

The fires that consumed The Station nightclub in Rhode Island and caused panic at E2 in Chicago have resulted in preliminary code changes that would place new burdens on risk managersnot only those at entertainment venues but a variety of organizations, including smaller facilities.

Almost any gathering place would require crowd managers for groups of 250 and more, in most venues except for churches. This is a reduction in occupant load from the former trigger of 1,000 occupants.

Code making and enforcement processes for such fires have largely been reactive in naturesomewhat similar to an aircraft crash investigation. A major incident occurs and teams of experts and investigators descend upon the tragedy to find evidence of what went wrong.

The information gathered is used to find out if existing codes were adequate to address the circumstances causing the incident and if those codes were properly enforced. Ordinarily this process occurs with little impact from the “outside” world. Major incidents, however, bring families and friends of the victims as well as the media into the process, demanding to know how such a terrible incident could have happened and what will be done about it.

Statistics of nightclubs and similar establishments reveal that in recent years the incidents of fire in these places of assembly only account for 0.3 percent of all firestrends show, however, that these fires tend to result in a disproportionately high fatality rate.

So where does this leave us today? Shortly after these two incidents, the National Fire Protection Association assembled an emergency meeting of the Technical Committee on Assembly Occupancies, on the Life Safety Code. The purpose of the meeting was to obtain committee-generated Technical Interim Amendments and proposals for the upcoming revision cycle of the Life Safety Code.

Input regarding E2 and The Station was presented. Six specific areas were targeted for evaluation: requirements for automatic fire sprinkler systems, interior finish and furnishings, egress capacity and exit arrangements, pyrotechnics, retroactive application of code requirements, and enforcement including inspection and permitting.

The outcome of the committee review was development of the Tentative Interim Amendments to the Life Safety Code, which also affect building construction and safety codes. TIAs are intended to address concerns which must be corrected before the next code revision cycle changes occur.

Some codes, like the Life Safety Code, are on two-year revision cycles due to the nature of rapid changes in our understanding of life safety issues and the need to address occupant safety in buildings. The TIAs are a means to include these changes on an interim basis until the next code revision cycle can make them a permanent part of the code when revised.

As it now stands, those TIAs will become a permanent part of the next Life Safety Code revision, to be published this year.

But what could be wrong with identifying a problem and fixing it to prevent future incident? There are several important considerations:

Are the code changes necessary?

Would full enforcement of the code as it existed at the time of the incident have been sufficient?

How will the code changes impact liability for owners and operators of these establishments?

As these amendments now stand, there will be a major impact upon liability to these businesses. At a minimum are two steps risk managers must be prepared to take concerning the proposed changes. First, become aware of the new requirements and determine if your organization can support them. If not, use your influence to see that they are not permanently adopted.

Failing to comply with current TIAs will result in significant liability exposure.

The amendments, as adopted, will require new measures for all assembly occupancies. Inspections by the building owner or agent are to be done daily to ensure exits are maintained free of obstructions. Whats more, records of these inspections showing the date, time and corrective action must be maintained on approved forms.

While there has always been a requirement to maintain the means of egress, the new requirement includes the creation of documentation. Should an incident occur at an assembly, someone will be asking to see these records. If the records are not available for review, the letter of the code requirement will have been violated and the property owner or risk manager will be exposed to greater liability, particularly if obstruction to exits played a part in the incident.

Whether or not exit maintenance is a key factor, lack of compliance could be offered as managements inattentiveness to life safety issues.

Crowd management has been part of the code requirements for assembly occupancies for nearly a quarter of a century. The code has required that Class A places of assembly (occupant load exceeding 1,000) have trained crowd managers and crowd manager supervisors at a ratio of one for every 250 occupants, with exceptions for houses of worship. These crowd managers are required to receive “approved” training in crowd management techniques.

The new requirement lowers that threshold trigger point to 250, meaning that when the occupant load reaches 250 there must be at least one trained crowd manager, or crowd manager supervisor, for each increment of 250 occupants.

A typical movie theater having a total occupant load capacity of 6,800, for instance, would need 28 trained persons on duty if operating at maximum occupancy.

The requirement for trained crowd managers has not been enforced in many areas due to several factors. While the details for lack of compliance are for another time, the establishment of the new, stricter staffing requirement will expose many more businesses to greater liability if they do not comply. Many code enforcement professionals believe that the crowd manager code requirement was not being followed before the TIA, and they do not expect the smaller-size establishments to observe this requirement.

The theory behind crowd manager provisions is sound. Past incidents show that employees of these businesses have played an instrumental part in safe evacuation of building occupants. In fact, a study of fires in these establishments reveals that the vast majority of patrons who survived these fires were evacuated prior to the fire department arrival. However, most large assembly occupancies, like movie theaters, today typically are run with the least staffing that management can provide in order to maintain profit margins.

When was the last time you visited a large movie complex and had the impression there was one employee for every 250 occupants? What about a smaller venue capable of servicing 500 patrons? Providing two trained persons at all times is highly unlikely. But if an incident does occur and it is discovered that these trained persons were not provided, this will most likely impact their liability.

Provisions for automatic fire sprinkler protection for assemblies have been dictated by the number of occupants. An occupant load of 300 or more was the trigger point for requiring sprinklers. The TIA requires fire sprinklers in existing bars, dance halls, discotheques, nightclubs and assembly occupancies with festival seating. For new buildings, built after the new code requirement, automatic fire sprinklers “shall be provided” in all such occupancies, according to the TIA.

Existing establishments with occupant loads exceeding 100 will have to retrofit fire sprinklers. It is not clear what the result will be for small businesses under the original trigger points for fire sprinkler requirements, but typically they do not have large budgets to work with. The cost of retrofit could be extensive. For example, a 2,000 square foot facility with an occupant load exceeding 100 could cost $6,000 to $10,000 or more to retrofit.

Festival seating (seating that is not fixed, unlike a movie theater or stadium) is restricted to establishments with occupancy less than 250, reduced from the prior requirement of 1,000 or less. Festival seating may be permitted for occupant loads greater than 250, however, as long as an approved Life Safety Evaluation has been performed.

The Life Safety Evaluation has been a part of the Life Safety Code for some time; it useful for developing life safety plans and has been restricted for application to assembly occupancies. It is likely that the cost of having such an evaluation developed could be prohibitive for smaller establishments.

This could result in businesses choosing to reduce occupant load, impacting business. They may also choose to ignore the requirement, impacting liability.

While the intentions of these code changes cannot be questioned, the potential impact upon businesses and their liability will be significant for many reasons. Business owners are often not aware of code requirements. Poor enforcement has historically played a role in large loss of life situations, and yet the business involved typically bears the brunt of the financial burden where they fail to meet code. The proposed code changes contained in the TIAs will have a significant impact upon liability and financial requirements.

The important question is whether the code requirements in existence at the time of these incidents were sufficient to have prevented either tragedy. The locked and blocked exits at the E2 in Chicago and continued violation of code enforcement efforts played a significant part in this tragedy. The Station in Rhode Island was cited for numerous violations of the existing code as a result of the investigation. Were these deficiencies missed or were existing requirements ignored? Only the legal proceedings can answer these questions.

Moreover, if we can conclude with certainty that the two events occurred because the existing requirements were not followed, how can we demand greater restriction? How can we ask businesses to follow stricter requirements when those in place at the time of the incidents were not adhered to?

Now is the time to look at the proposed changes and determine if they are necessary, or if we simply need to make certain that we are properly enforcing the code in the first place. No matter which direction is taken, however, requirements that the code is enforced will remain.

We know how to prevent such horrific loss of lifenow lets put it into practice.

David R. Blossom is a risk control consultant in Orlando, Fla. He has served as past president of the Central Florida Chapter of the American Society of Safety Engineers and vice chairman of the City of Orlando Building and Fire Code Appeals Board. Currently he is chairman of the Fire & Life Safety Code Board of Adjustments and Appeals for Orange County, Fla.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, January 20, 2005. Copyright 2005 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.

Special Reports /

Club Fires Spur Major Changes In Fire Codes

Related Stories

Recommended For You