Reaction time is getting shorter.....

In may of 1977, the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire caused the loss of 167 lives. I lived a few miles from this event and witnessed the response and loss of life.

I wanted to know how did this happen and what could be done to prevent it in the future?

I entered the fire service in 1978 with an interest in codes and protection systems. I ended up not going to law school, but following the call of fire safety.

I was able to study fire science in college. That included a review of the newly adopted Kentucky Building Code. I was introduced to the Life Safety Code at this time. Upon graduation from college, I worked as a fire marshal and used my new education to enforce the codes on my local jurisdiction.

I then worked for a high-rise developer and provided life safety and security services to high rise office buildings. This included evacuation planning, tenant training, fire alarm and sprinkler maintenance and overseeing upgrades to alarm and suppression systems. I learned the balance life safety with security features of the property.

I entered the commercial insurance profession in 1986 and was on a training path to be a property specialist. I was intrigued that the Life Safety Code was not one of the foundational texts. The answer was that life safety was a liability issue and outside the property insurance scope of work. An interesting approach. I ended up not only as a property specialist but our company resource for Life Safety Code questions.

My collection of NFPA 13 editions dates to 1987 and it states that NFPA 13 is intended to provide “A reasonable degree of protection for life and property from fire”. NFPA 25 is intended to “provide a reasonable degree of protection for life and property from fire”. NFPA 13 does this by having installation standards and NFPA 25 by having inspection testing and maintenance standards. The two codes support the same goal. Life safety is clearly a goal for these two documents.

Light hazard occupancies have 16 example occupancies listed in the NFPA 13 appendix. Of these 16 examples, 10 are occupancies with an expected high level of human occupancy. Light hazard could be considered as a target occupancy classification for life safety sprinklers.

These same occupancies have been impacted by the changing fuel package in modern buildings. The shift from natural fibers and textiles to foamed plastics has shifted fire behavior dramatically. See most recent testing video from UL https://youtu.be/87hAnxuh1g8

NFPA 13 1999 edition required light hazard occupancies to be protected with quick response sprinklers. Buildings built to the NFPA standards since that time have had quick response sprinklers installed

NFPA 25 requires testing of standard response sprinklers at 50 years. If the representative sample of the sprinklers pass the test, they can be left in service and retested in 10 years. This means that standard response sprinklers, installed in accordance with codes before 1999, may remain in service in light hazard occupancies until the sprinklers fail performance tests. Given the current knowledge of fire behavior changes, does this support the goal of providing reasonable degree of protection for life?

Michael J. Joanis, PE published an article on this topic in the November / December issue of National Fire Sprinkler Magazine. His modeling of sprinkler performance using the NIST DETACT-TC compared quick response sprinklers to standard response sprinklers across a spectrum of fire growth rates. Ceiling heights and sprinkler spacings. The average of the 12 models indicated that a quick response sprinkler would activate 77 seconds faster than a standard response sprinkler.

77 seconds is literally a lifetime for occupants in a building exposed to a fire. Mr. Joanis proposes that we reconsider the codes that would allow standard response sprinklers to persist in light hazard occupancies. I would propose that at the fifty-year mark, the standard response sprinklers in light hazard occupancies be replaced with quick response sprinklers to provide that reasonable level of protection for life that is the intent of both NFPA 13 and NFPA 25.

This has been a topic within the fire protection engineering world. I think it should be considered in the risk management world as we work to protect life and property. The insurance industry could provide a strong voice to support this type of change in the codes and standards.