BY SEAN DeCRANE
A number of people have asked me, “How did you get involved in the codes?” An assignment to suppression doesn’t always translate into an interest in building and fire codes, so people are curious about how the interest and activism began.
It began on a dare. I was speaking to a friend who was describing some of the things that were happening within the code process at the time. He dared me to attend a code hearing and witness the proceedings for myself. At the time, I was the secretary for our International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) local, teaching at our Training Academy and studying the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) firefighter line-of-duty death reports, trying to figure a way to reduce the risk our members face on a daily basis.
The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) also released the July 2002 report, “U.S. Fire Service Fatalities in Structure Fires, 1977-2000,” outlining how our members are killed while performing their duties. While reading this report, a couple of numbers jumped out at me. The first was that we are losing approximately the same number of firefighters per structure fire today as we did in the late 1970s: 5.8 in the 1970s as opposed to 5.7 in 2000. The report also noted how deaths from cardiac incidents have decreased over the years, indicating the fire service emphasis on better health was having a positive impact.
Of concern also were the numbers that showed that our fellow firefighters are at an increased risk of death from traumatic injuries. There were 1.8 deaths per 100,000 structure fires in 1977; that number increased to almost three deaths per 100,000 structure fires in 2000. That number had almost doubled. A number of factors could contribute to these numbers, including our turnout gear, which allows members to get into situations where they should not be and does not enable them to recognize changing conditions; the increased use of thermoplastics in residential homes; polyurethane foam furniture; and the increased use of insulation properties and of unprotected lightweight construction. A number of these issues are governed by the building codes. With these issues in mind, I headed for a code hearing.
TIPPING POINT
The time I spent at the hearing was an eye-opening experience. I witnessed dozens of individuals walk to the microphone and speak to the needs of the fire service, the tactics of the fire service, and the fire service’s explanations of how buildings perform when exposed to fire. The problem that was very obvious to a firefighter was that these individuals speaking for the fire service, however well intentioned they may have been, clearly were not members of the fire service. They had never been trained as firefighters and, most importantly, had never been in a working fire.
After three days of participating at this meeting, I was intrigued enough to attend an International Code Council (ICC) Code Technology Committee meeting in Chicago in early 2006. It was at this meeting that I reached the “Tipping Point.” There was a discussion concerning acceptable losses in a building impacted by fire. After a fairly lengthy debate, I finally raised my hand and asked, “What about us? We are going in after these acceptable losses.” The chairman of the committee reassured me that they will look out for us, as it is stated in the Intent of the Code. I looked around and saw two other firefighters in the packed room. I left with the absolute belief that the fire service must take ownership and ensure the safety of our own “work environment.”
A SAFER WORK ENVIRONMENT
What is our work environment? Some may believe it is the fire station. I believe we should consider the fire station our staging area. The fire station is where we report to work, prepare our equipment, and wait for an assignment. Our work environment consists of the structures within our response districts. We respond to these structures and operate within them. The Building Code establishes how these structures will be designed and built, which safety features will be included, the type of materials used in their construction, and how access and egress will be accomplished.
The Fire Code mandates how these structures will be maintained. A number of building officials continue to believe the fire service should not be involved in the building code, but the truth is that once the occupancy permit is issued, it becomes our responsibility to see that the code is upheld. We are the individuals who will be responding to these buildings in an emergency. It only makes sense that we should be involved in how it is designed and constructed so that we can understand how it will perform in these incidents.
In the past couple of years, a number of important issues have been proposed and discussed in many of the adopted codes. In this current ICC cycle, there has been considerable debate concerning installing sprinkler systems in one- and two-family residences. The NFPA Building and Fire Codes already mandate that residential sprinklers be installed.
In the last cycle, the fire service was successful, through increased attendance, in securing the passage of the requirement of residential sprinklers in the ICC/International Residential Code. This angered the National Association of Home Builders, even though it had been employing the same tactics to win votes for years. The fire service is not supposed to have this amount of influence. This is also an organization that testified against including firefighter safety in the Intent of the Residential Code. We are now working hard to maintain this life safety feature.
We are also proposing to require the protection of lightweight structural components in one- and two-family homes. Over the years we have been taught, through our training, that there are two ways to predict how wood will respond to fire, moisture content and mass. In today’s building codes, we are losing the mass. We have proposed this in the past and were told by the industry that our personal experiences were not evidence that there was a problem. Since our last attempt, three studies have been published—by Underwriters Laboratories in conjunction with the Chicago (IL) Fire Department, by Tyco Industries, and by the National Research Center in Canada—that indicate there is an increased risk of structural collapse with unprotected lightweight construction.
Tests also indicate that today’s traditional sawn lumber techniques are not what they used to be and also lead to an earlier collapse time. This is an additional note firefighters need to be aware of as they perform their size-up and employ their tactics. We do not have the time we used to have to accomplish these tasks because of the accelerated collapse time of today’s lightweight structural components.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
What can we do? Become involved. Each code and standard impacting our safety undergoes a process. As firefighters, we need to be involved in the process. The NFPA is currently revising a number of the standards that are also referenced in the ICC codes. The NFPA will conduct a technical review of NFPA 5000, Building Construction and Safety Code®, 2009 ed., and NFPA 101, Life Safety Code®, 2009 ed.
The ICC has recently concluded its Public Action Meetings in Baltimore. Industry’s efforts to remove the residential sprinkler requirements failed by a committee vote of 7-5. This was a solid acknowledgement that it was time for the fire service to move this issue to the local level. It also reaffirms that sprinklers are a part of the minimum code requirement for safety.
We attempted to work with industry to protect lightweight construction. Representatives from the National Association of Home Builders worked with us to craft language that could be adopted and would require the protection of lightweight structural elements if the house is not sprinklered. Unfortunately, the chairman of the committee ruled the modification out of order.
It doesn’t end there. We will have another chance through the Final Action hearings next year to revise our efforts and ensure these requirements are entered or preserved in the code.
Part of the culture of the fire service has always been to do your job, be part of the solution and not the problem, and take care of your own. We need to do a better job of transferring these qualities to creating a safer work environment. Members of industry do not understand, nor can they unless they actually perform our duties, what it is like to crawl down a dark, smoke- and heat-filled hallway looking for the seat of a fire. Industry is not paid to represent the interests of the fire service. These are our responsibilities. There is no way anyone besides a firefighter can convey the experiences encountered in a fire.
We must begin to convey these experiences to others who are involved in establishing the parameters for designing and constructing the built environment. We do not have to get into a technical debate; we just have to relay our experiences. Hopefully, we can create a dialogue with representatives of industry and they can begin to address our concerns. For the most part, most industry representatives want to do the right thing and address safety issues in a responsible and cost-effective manner. It is our responsibility to give them the feedback they need.
NFPA STANDARDS/CODES AND ICC CODES
Our members have a wide variety of interests and expertise. In the codes and standards processes, everything from the boots on your feet to the products needed in a one-family home are addressed. We have seen an increased demand for our services, yet in these economic times there is a decrease of resources. How do we address firefighter safety issues in a cost-effective manner? By responsibly participating in industry and code and standard processes. I encourage you to find an area of interest and participate.
To get involved, visit the NFPA Web site at www.nfpa.org and review the timelines for submitting comments for the various standards or apply for membership on a technical committee. If you are interested in ICC code, visit its Web site at www.iccsafe.org/ and arrange to attend one or both of the Final Action hearings scheduled for 2010.
Industry feels threatened by the fire service’s increased participation in the codes process and has been successful in pressuring the ICC board of directors to change the voting process in an effort to limit our participation. We are challenging these changes and will continue to do so. In the end, even if jurisdictions can send only one person each or if individuals can contribute to one committee or standard, that will have a large impact on the codes and standards process, and industry will not be able to ignore the fire service’s consistent message: “Give us a safer work environment.”
SEAN DeCRANE is a 19-year veteran of the Cleveland (OH) Fire Department, where he is a battalion chief assigned to suppression duties. He is a certified Ohio life safety inspector and an adjunct instructor for the Cleveland Fire Academy. He is the strategy leader for the Vision 20/20: National Fire Loss Prevention Agenda’s Strategy 5 Initiative and a member of the Underwriters Laboratories Fire Council and of the ICC Fire Code Development Committee. He represents the International Association of Fire Fighters in the ICC code process.
