The mission of the international nonprofit NFPA, established in 1896, is to reduce the worldwide burden of fire and other hazards on the quality of life by providing and advocating consensus codes and standards, research, training, and education.
The views expressed on this blog reflect the personal opinion of the individual author and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of NFPA, its technical committees, or other constituent parts. Use of this blog is subject to NFPA's Terms of Use and Content Disclaimers.
The team at NFPA Journal recently combed through the list of more than 150 education sessions occurring at NFPA's Conference & Expo in Chicago. Wittling down a selection this sizable is never an easy task, especially since the topics seem to be as intriguing as in years past.
Always up to the challenge, we've compiled our favorites into a Journal feature. Curious about an NFPA guide getting play in courtrooms across the U.S.? Want the latest information on the intended adoption of NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services? Interested in discovering how NFPA is safeguarding Hollywood?
As NFPA continues to move forward with implementation of the Standards Development Process, many of the new benefits of online submission process continue to take hold. When Public Input/Comments are submitted online the proposed changes are integrated in-line on the draft document. Once the closing date has passed online submissions allow the Committee Members to see all of the proposed changes integrated into one complete document virtually immediately, maximize the amount of time each Committee Member has to review all of the proposed changes and prepare for any upcoming committee meeting. However, while we want to provide as much extra time as possible to our Committee Members, we also want to consider the needs of those who still want to submit their Public Input/Comments on the “paper forms” via e-mail, fax or mail. Beginning with the Fall 2014 submittals of Public Comments, we have implemented an earlier closing date for “paper submissions” of Public Input/Comments. The earlier closing date will allow the necessary time to key and proof any proposed change to ensure the changes are presented for Committee consideration at the same time as the changes submitted online.
Paper Submission Closing Dates. The closing date for paper submissions, (this includes forms sent via e-mail, fax or mail), for the Fall 2014 comments will be October 11, 2013 and the closing date for the electronic submission system will be November 15, 2013. All revised schedules can be located on the respective document information page or http://www.nfpa.org/schedules.
Please be advised, that it is anticipated that in the future, “paper submissions” will not be accepted so please take this opportunity to try out the new system – we think you’ll really like it! As always we are here to help you participate in the NFPA process. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at 617-984-7240 or via email at standardsdev_support@nfpa.org .
For additional information on NFPA Standards Development Process, please visit NFPA’s website at www.nfpa.org/newprocess.
As was the case in The Station nightclub fire 10 years ago in Rhode Island, combustible insulating foam appears to have been a major factor in how the Kiss nightclub fire in Brazil began and spread, says Chip Carson in his column "Finish Issues" in the most recent issue of NFPA Journal. Because textiles placed on walls and ceilings can burn very quickly, NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, includes a number of requirements for interior finish materials. For a closer look at these requirements, including those that address cellular and foamed plastic, go to page 32 of the March/April issue of NFPA Journal or read Chip's column online.
The First Draft Reports for 30 NFPA documents in the Annual 2014 revision cycle are now available. Review the First Draft Reports for use as background in the submission of public comments. The deadline to submit a public comment on any of these documents is May 3, 2013. Some of the proposed NFPA documents with First Draft Reports in the Annual 2014 revision cycle are as follows:
The First Draft Report serves as documentation of the Input Stage and is published for public review and comment. The First Draft Report contains a compilation of the First Draft of the NFPA Standard, First Revisions, Public Input, Committee Input, Committee Statements, and Ballot Results and Statements. Where applicable, the First Draft Report also contains First Correlating Revisions, Correlating Notes, and Correlating Input.
Is the codes and standards community ready for risk assessments in NFPA documents?
That was one of a handful of questions posed by William Koffel of Koffel Associates, a fire protection engineering consulting firm, at the Suppression, Detection and Signaling Research and Applications Conference (SUPDET) in Orlando. Koffel highlighted how risk assessments have appeared in NFPA's codes and standards and why it may become more prominent in future editions of documents.
However, the 2012 edition of NFPA 99, Health Care Facilities, was "the first document I'm aware of that specifically says you have do a risk assessment," says Koffel.
The Fire Protection Research Foundation has developed a guidance document that can assist NFPA technical committees in incorporating risk concepts in NFPA documents. Koffel urged SUPDET attendees to ponder the implications of requirements on risk analysis, such as whether authorities having jurisdictions and code users are ready to take on these analyses.
Standard
for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing,
Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids - See more
at:
http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=654#sthash.zrSiAu6a.dpufP
Standard
for the Prevention of Fire and Dust Explosions from the Manufacturing,
Processing, and Handling of Combustible Particulate Solids - See more
at:
http://www.nfpa.org/aboutthecodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?DocNum=654#sthash.zrSiAu6a.dpuf
Just shot a quick interview with Robert Solomon, NFPA's division manager of Building & Life Safety Codes. Robert is one of the resident experts on nightclub safety and he answered a number of questions about this weekend's deadly fire at the Kiss nightclub in Santa Maria, Brazil.
As of this morning, the death toll currently stands at 231 dead and hundreds more injured.
We should have the video interview edited and posted on this blog in the next few hours. Stay tuned.
A security camera captures a Chicago police officer as he tries to drag people to safety during a crowd-crush incident at the E2 nightclub in Chicago in 2003. Photo: AP/Wide World
Ask a life safety expert if conditions at nightclubs and other places of assembly have improved since the Station fire a decade ago, and the answer will most likely be a mixed bag.
“The awareness level of the need for preparedness — whether it’s crowd manager training or emergency action plans — has risen fairly substantially,” says Harold Hansen, director of Life Safety and Security for the International Association of Venue Managers (IAVM) and member of the NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®, Assembly Occupancies Committee. “The venues are much more in tune with the issues and are aware of the possibility [of an incident]. I still think there remains a fair amount of complacency from them that says, ‘We know how to evacuate.’ The answer is they do. But is the staff training adequate enough to do it effectively?”
To address this issue, IAVM has joined a handful of U.S. states that have created versions of crowd manager training programs tied to NFPA code provisions. The programs, developed in response to the Station fire, require a “trained crowd manager” for every 250 people in assembly occupancies. Since its inception in 2010, nearly 7,600 people have taken IAVM’s course which includes an online component and a two-hour, venue-specific training session. IAVM plans to roll out a region-specific, classroom-based course for venues looking to train large numbers of people later this year.
Despite these efforts, safety oversights in nightclubs continue, and have been responsible for a number of deadly fires and non-fire events worldwide over the past decade. A few of those include:
Lame Horse Nightclub Perm, Russia December 4, 2009 A pyrotechnics display during an overcrowded party at the Russian nightclub ignited the building’s plastic ceiling and combustible decorations. Patrons stormed the only known exit, an act that crushed and choked some of them to death, according to Reuters. Others perished in the fire. In all, nearly 160 people died and dozens were injured.
Santika Pub Bangkok, Thailand January 1, 2009 Minutes after Thailand rang in the New Year, pyrotechnics coinciding with a band’s performance were set off inside the Santika Pub. The sparks ignited the ceiling, causing chunks of combustible material and metal to hit the ground. As the fire spread through the overcrowded venue, which lacked sprinklers and a fire alarm system, club goers attempted escape but were hampered by a fire-induced power outage that took out the lighting. More than 400 patrons stormed the main exit that, along with the building’s other fire exits, couldn’t sufficiently accommodate a proper evacuation during the fire. Nearly 70 people were killed and more than 220 injured, making the incident the worst nightclub fire in the nation’s history.
Cromagnon Republic Club Buenos Aires, Argentina December 30, 2004 A rock concert at the Cromagnon Republic Club turned deadly when a patron at the unsprinklered venue shot a flare at the ceiling during a concert. The flare caused the ceiling’s foam and other combustible materials to ignite, forcing patrons at the overcrowded club—three times the venue’s capacity, according to news reports — to scramble to exits that were locked by management to prevent patrons from entering without paying an entrance fee. The blaze was the deadliest in Argentine history — nearly 200 patrons, most of them teenagers, died, and another 1,400 were injured, according to The Guardian.
E2 Nightclub Chicago, Illinois February 17, 2003 More than 1,100 patrons — roughly five times its capacity — were packed into the E2 nightclub when a fight erupted on the crowded dance floor, prompting security to break up the dispute using pepper spray, according to the Associated Press. As the overhead fans dispersed the irritant, the crowd rushed the exits looking for fresh air, many of them heading down a narrow staircase toward the front entrance. Pushing and shoving ensued, resulting in a human pileup as high as six feet [2 meters], according to news reports. The crowd crush led to 21 deaths and nearly 60 injuries. Following that incident, and the fire at The Station nightclub three days later, NFPA enhanced and further strengthened a series of already stringent code provisions addressing crowd control, egress, and sprinkler installation for both new and existing assembly occupancies.
Multiple news sources are reporting that a fire at a popular nightclub in Southern Brazil has killed at least 220 people.
According to a report on CNN, the death toll is expected to climb as firefighters continue to pull bodies from the Kiss nightclub in Santa Maria. The regional coordinator of civil defense is quoted as saying that most of those killed appeared to have died of smoke inhalation. Local officials report that the fire started at about 2 a.m. after the acoustic insulation in the nightclub caught fire. They also say that there was a pyrotechnics show going on inside the club when the fire started, but stopped short of blaming it for the blaze, saying the cause was still under investigation.
As the 10th anniversary of The Station nightclub fire in Rhode Island, the current issue of NFPA Journal talks to Robert Feeney, a survivor of that tragedy. That fire was caused when pyrotechnics ignited accousitc foam around a concert stage. Mr. Feeney returns to the site of the blaze to remember the friends he lost that night and his efforts to recover.
Last year's Superstorm Sandy proved that power outages can wreak havoc on various types of facilities--a problem only exacerbated if necessary emergency power systems are compromised. (Read the NFPA Journal story on how the recent storm highlighted the importance of emergency power in health care facilities.)
Journal columnist Jeffrey Sargent recently highlighted the array of NFPA codes and standards addressing emergency power--including NFPA 70®, National Electrical Code® (NEC), and NFPA 101®, Life Safety Code®--and how provisions in one code assimilate well with requirements in others. For example, Sargent explains that the two classifications of emergency power supply systems, found in NFPA 110, Emergency and Standby Power Systems,align with provisions in the NEC.
According to Chip Carson in his column "Between Clear and Cluttered" in the latest issue of NFPA Journal, there are some some significant changes regarding placement and use of items in corridors of health care occupancies in the 2012 edition of the Life Safety Code, changes that were made to improve the quality of life, particularly in nursing homes, and to recognize the operational needs in hospitals. After decades of working to keep corridors completely clear, inspectors and surveyors will have to work with health care providers to find a balance between the equipment and furnishings allowed in corridors while making sure that the spaces remain uncluttered. To review some of these changes, read the January/February issue of NFPA Journal.
.jpg)
.jpg)
