PREVENTING AND MITIGATING FIRES IN BUILDINGS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1
Preventing and Mitigating Fires in Buildings under Construction at Sandy Springs Fire Rescue
(SSFR), Sandy Springs, Georgia
David Adams
Sandy Springs Fire Rescue
City of Sandy Springs, Georgia
2
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where the language of
others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have
used the language, idea, expression or writing of another.
Signed: ____________________________________________
David L. Adams
3
Abstract
The construction and demolition of buildings and structures is an inherently dangerous endeavor.
Fires in buildings under construction can be extremely dangerous. The problem was there is no
guidance provided to contractors for preventing or mitigating fires in buildings under
construction that could lead to potential loss of property in Sandy Springs Georgia. The purpose
of this research was to identify problems, recommendations and regulations to help prevent and
mitigate fires for under construction in the City of Sandy Springs. Four research questions were
asked: What problems exist for fire prevention and mitigation for buildings under construction in
Sandy Springs? What local, state and federal requirements apply to fire prevention procedures at
buildings under construction? What are other jurisdictions doing to prevent fires in buildings
under construction? What are the recommendations for fire prevention and mitigation for
buildings under construction in Sandy Springs? The research method was descriptive; the
research approaches are literature review, survey instruments and interviews. The results found
adaptive challenges to changing the mindset of contractors and fire officers through development
of educational “awareness” programs aimed at engaging stakeholders in fire prevention
measures. Problems and recommendations were identified. The NFPA 241, Standard for
Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations was found to be applicable in
Georgia with International fire Code (IFC) supplements. Analysis of other departments
indicated use of alternative codes to NFPA 241, offered conditions for occupancy without a
Certificate of Occupancy, and indicated that safeguarding roofing operations were the most
difficult prevention measure to enforce. The recommendations included that a further analysis of
NFPA 3 was needed, SSFR should incorporate two NIOSH recommendations; SSFR should
4
conduct pre-incident planning inspections; SSFR should examine staffing, and SSFR should
develop a problem reporting and documenting system.
5
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….. 3
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………... 5
Introduction………………………………………………………………………… 7
Background and Significance……………………………………………………… 9
Literature Review…………………………………………………………………...13
Procedures………………………………………………………………………….. 20
Results……………………………………………………………………………… 23
Discussion…………………………………………………………………….......... 36
Recommendations………………………………………………………………….. 42
Reference List……………………………………………………………………….44
Appendices
Appendix 1 (Index of the NFPA 241 Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration,
and Demolition Operations)……………………………………………………... 48
Appendix 2 (Sample Demolition Inspection Checklist)…………………................ 49
Appendix 3 (Sample Safeguarding Building Under Construction Checklist) …...... 52
Appendix 4 (Sample pre-fire plan) …………………................................................54
Appendix 5 (Neighboring Jurisdiction’s Organization Chart)................................... 55
Appendix 6 (NFPA Table 2007-2011 Averages).......................................................56
Appendix 7 (Survey Instrument).………………….......……………………………57
Appendix 8 (SSFR New Construction Inspection Summary from 2009 thru 2014)..60
Appendix 9 (Active Construction Sites, Excluding Renovations)……………….....62
6
Tables
Table 1 (What fire prevention codes do you enforce for buildings under
construction?)………………………………………………………………………. 26
Table 2 (What code issues do you enforce for demolition and new construction
activities?)………………………………………………………………………….. 27
Table 3 (What is the most challenging requirement to enforce for your office (selection
will rearrange order?)………………………………………………………………. 28
Table 4 (Does your jurisdiction permit occupancy of a building under partial completion
(TCO)?)…………………………………………………………………………….. 29
Table 5 (Has your jurisdiction experienced a fire loss during construction in the past 10
years?)……………………………………………………………………… ……....31
Table 6 (If there was a fire loss, what was the estimated combined amount of the
loss?)……………………………………………………………………………….. 31
Table 7 (If there was a fire loss, what was the causation of the fire?)…………….32
Table 8 (Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?)…………….32
7
Introduction
The construction and demolition of buildings and structures is an inherently dangerous
endeavor. Fires in buildings under construction can be extremely dangerous. Firefighters and
chief officers need to be aware of the hazards of such fires that include: propane tank explosions,
entanglement from extension cords and ropes, open stair or elevator shafts, concentrations of
combustible materials and shoring collapse due to fire. Unfinished fire protection systems can
also contribute to the rapid spread of fire.
On top of the hazards is the inherent danger of lack of or incomplete compartmentation
often presented by exposed wood members prior to the installation of gypsum wallboard on the
walls. Under these conditions, a fire can spread quickly and rapidly. If there are high winds, fire
growth can be phenomenal. This continues to be a potential for disaster on the fire ground.
Additionally, construction sites are dynamic; they constantly change configurations including
changes in apparatus access, fencing, work vehicles, trenching, etc. Retired Fire Department
New York (FDNY) Deputy Chief, Vincent Dunn (Dunn, 2008) observed, “Buildings under
construction or demolition are dangerous places, and when they are on fire, extremely dangerous.
Firefighters should know when they run into a burning building under construction or
demolition, all bets are off.”
Just how dangerous can these sites and structures be? Fire caused the deaths of two
FDNY fighters in the demolition of the Deutsche Bank building of August 18, 2007 (NIOSH,
2010). Two different construction crane collapses killed seven people in New York City on
March 16, 2008 and another 2 killed two in the same city on May 30, 2008. In addition, an
8
explosion in a San Diego, CA hotel under construction killed five people and injured 14 (Dunn,
Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition, 2008).
The statistics for firefighter fire ground fatalities indicate that buildings under
construction and demolition are the most dangerous of all occupancy types. The National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) statistics indicate that eight to ten firefighters are killed per every
100,000 incidents. By comparison, fires in one and two family dwelling buildings kill four
firefighters per 100,000 incidents (Dunn, Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition,
2008)
The problem is there is little to no guidance provided contractors on preventing or
mitigating fires in buildings under construction that could lead to potential loss of property in
Sandy Springs, Georgia. The purpose of this research is to identify problems, recommendations
and regulations to help prevent and mitigate fires for buildings under construction in the City of
Sandy Springs (COSS). Four research questions answered were: What problems exist for the
fire prevention and mitigation for buildings under construction in Sandy Springs? What local,
state and federal requirements apply to fire prevention procedures at buildings under
construction? What are other jurisdictions doing to prevent fires in buildings under
construction? What are the recommendations for fire prevention and mitigation for buildings
under construction in Sandy Springs? The research method is descriptive; the research
approaches are literature review, survey instruments and interviews.
This research does not attempt to address workplace safety, though improved fire safety
is a plus for workplace safety, rather it addresses fire safety for buildings under construction and
to some extent, demolition.
9
Background and Significance
The COSS has only experienced one significant fire during construction in its eight years
since its incorporation. On February 12, 2012 a fire that caused moderate fire damage occurred
at Life Time Fitness, a health club located at 5580 Roswell Road, Sandy Springs, Georgia. The
fire’s cause was ruled as undetermined, “however spontaneous ignition of dust mop, shop
vacuum, and report of a walk-off rag and the apparent bag of sawdust could not be ruled out as
an ignition source.” (Adams, 2013). There are automatic sprinklers and fire alarm were not yet
operational. There was a security officer present at the time of the fire. The lessons learned was
to ensure that the fire suppression systems are in service as soon as practicable and to ensure that
the owner has an active Fire Safety Program as required by NFPA 241, section 7.1. Enforcement
of NFPA would have required the contractor to ensure that there was proper housekeeping.
Fortunately, the SSFR has not suffered an injury or a fatality from fires in buildings under
construction or demolition.
The recovering economy has sparked a wave of new and renovated construction in the
COSS with an overwhelming volume of nearly $1.6 billion per year in new construction and
alterations (Adams, Projected Workload 2014 (Confidential), 2014). There has been a 500%
increase in new construction square footage volume in the last twelve months, see Appendix 8.
Additionally, Appendix 9 shows the graphic representation of all new construction sites that
impact land development. Thus renovation projects are not included. Currently, the ongoing
construction in the COSS includes numerous large projects including:
• One 24 story high-rise under construction; five more high-rises planned for 2015
• Three large multi-acre, 5-6 story apartment complexes finishing; five more large
complexes currently commencing construction
10
• COSS City Center to start construction in late 2015. New city hall, performing
arts center, parking deck, mixed use apartments and city park
• One new middle school
• Three fully renovated high rises
This volume of construction activity presents an abundance of construction related fire
prevention issues. Staffing is a significant issue. Currently, the there is only one staff member, a
fire protection engineer, performing all plan review and inspection work of close to 1.6 billion
dollars of construction annually (Adams, Projected Workload 2014 (Confidential), 2014).
While there is a wide variety of occupancy types, there is one particular occupancy that
has arguablly become the most significant target hazard during construction: large multi-family
wood-frame luxury apartments. This is due in large part because of the volume of combustible
construction (fuel load), immense project size and numerous ignition sources. These wood-
frame structures are typically constructed with untreated and fire-treated exterior walls and are
“wrapped” around or abut a pre-cast parking deck. These structures are typically 5-6 stories in
height.
These large apartments have been spurred on by the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis that
coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June, 2009 (Nation Bureau of Economic
Research, 2014). Gone are the three story, sixteen unit, garden-style apartments that were
constructed through the mid-eighties. The luxury apartments are the current trend in the
development; they are driven by the bottom dollar: initial cost tied to higher rents.
These apartment buildings are especially vulnerable to fire loss. The recent construction
trend of the past twenty years have created the recipe for spectacular fires with devastating loss
of properties such as a four-alarm fire that destroyed a condominium complex under construction
11
in Rahway N.J., early on January 4, 2011. Over 100 firefighters from 10 departments failed to
control the blaze (Naum, 2011). Most recently, on March 25, 2014, a five-alarm fire in Houston
TX, destroyed a 396-unit, four 1/2-acre apartment project in the city's Montrose district that
required more than 200 firefighters who fought the fire for 2 1/2 hours before bringing it under
control (Associated Press, March).
Fortunately, neither of these two fires had significant injuries or fatalities. Another tragic
event would serve to remind that fire firing in building under demolition and or construction can
be very dangerous, in some cases, lethal to firefighters. The following is an excerpt from the
NIOSH report Firefighter Fatality Report (NIOSH, 2010) dated August 5, 2010, regarding two
Fire Department New York (FDNY) fatalities:
On August 18, 2007, a 53-year-old male career firefighter and a 33-year-old male career
firefighter became trapped in the maze-like conditions of a high-rise building undergoing
deconstruction. The building’s standpipe system had been disconnected during the
deconstruction and the partitions constructed for asbestos abatement prohibited
firefighters from getting water to the seat of the fire. An hour into the incident, the fire
department was able to supply water by running an external hoseline up the side of the
structure. Soon after the victims began to operate their hoseline, they ran out of air. The
victims suffered severe smoke inhalation and were transported to a metropolitan hospital
in cardiac arrest where they succumbed to their injuries. By the time the fire was
extinguished, 115 firefighters had suffered a variety of injuries.
Key contributing factors to this incident include: delayed notification of the fire by
building construction personnel, inoperable standpipe and sprinkler system, blocked
12
stairwells preventing firefighter access and egress…. (and) maze-like interior conditions
from partitions and construction debris.
The NIOSH report contains 16 recommendations to the FDNY, many of which are considered in
portions of the results of this research.
There is an alarming trend in building code development process that is promoting larger
and taller wood buildings. The NFPA publishes a new study entitled, “Fire Safety Challenges of
Tall Wood Buildings.” (Gerard & Barber, 2013) Researchers Robert Gerard and David Barber
with Arup North America Ltd. notes “construction is currently underway on a 10-story apartment
building in Melbourne, Australia, with taller structures up to 30 stories under design in Norway,
Austria and Vancouver. These buildings are cited for their advantages in sustainability resulting
from the use of wood as a renewable construction material.” The fire protection premise is that
the outside layer of char provides insulation to the wood members. The study concluded that
more study is needed of the structural component and sub-system fire tests and compartment fire
dynamics.
Another challenging trend is the desire by the building owners to have the tenants occupy
the finished portions of an unfinished building still under construction with the issuance of a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO). This practice requires the utmost diligence by the
regulatory entity to ensure the safety of the occupants who are directly adjacent to construction.
The stakes couldn’t be higher, and the risk can be extreme if not properly managed.
This research will attempt to assemble the regulatory requirements for buildings under
construction and identify new areas of research. These areas include such areas as maintaining
fire walls, early implementation of water supplies and functionality of water supplies and
maintaining sensitivity of sprinkler heads. While such issues fall under the fire prevention
13
bureau to enforce, temporary method of fire prevention on construction sites can have a direct
impact on operations.
The National Fire Academy’s (NFA) final class of the Executive Fire Officer Program
(EFO) center’s around the concept presented in Heifetz – Linsky book, The Practice of Adaptive
Leadership (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). Adaptive leadership is defined as “the practice
of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive.”
The adaptive leadership challenge included in this research will be the changing of the
mindset of the contractors and building owners to address and become mindful of the threat to
property and loss of life from fires during construction. While the problem definition may
appear technical, there is an overall misunderstanding of the risk of fire by many of the
stakeholders. There is also an ongoing adaptive challenge of persuading leaders who employ
outdated fire ground tactics to ensure that the “acceptable level of risk is directly related to the
potential to save lives or property.” (NIOSH, 2010).
Furthermore, this research problem is consistent with the first National Response
Framework (NRF) protocol: save lives and protect the health and safety of the public,
responders, and recovery workers (FEMA, 2012)
Literature Review
In an article entitled, Fires in Buildings Under Construction, Homer Robinson noted the
tactical challenges of fighting fires in these circumstances (Robertson, Fires in Buildings Under
Construction, 2011). These challenges include: construction site dangers and rapid spread of fire
through exposed construction frame and lack of compartmentation.
14
In a report that examined fire causation entitled, Structure Fires in Vacant or Idle
Properties, or Properties under Construction, Demolition or Renovation, (NFPA Fire Analysis
and Research Division, 2001) the NFPA found that the “leading causes of fires in buildings
under construction are flammable or suspicious (39.5%); open flame, embers or torches (20.8%);
and heating equipment (9.7%).” The NFPA also found that the “leading causes of fires in
buildings under demolition are open flame, embers or torches (51.7%), and flammable or
suspicious (35.9%).”
In an editorial entitled, Fire Safety in Buildings under Construction (Pengalaman, 2012),
the authors noted that NFPA research indicated “The property loss per fire incident resulting
from fires in buildings under construction is higher than most structure fire losses.”
Russ Fleming (Flemming, 2009) identified some of the consequences associated with not
providing an operational supervised automatic fire protection systems in buildings that under
construction. In an article, Fire Sprinkler Systems During Construction, Flemming examined the
potential consequences when the automatic sprinkler system is not operational as required by
NFPA 241.
The Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE) Engineering Guide to Fire Risk
Assessment offers guidance for the use of fire risk methodologies for in buildings under
construction (Society of Fire Protection Engineers, 2006). The NFPA 550, Guide to the Fire
Safety Concepts Tree, offers guidance to show the relationships of fire prevention and fire
damage control strategies for building under construction (NFPA, 2012).
Recognizing the importance of the recent fire in review fires in buildings under
construction, the International Code Council (ICC), National Association of Home Builders
(NAHB) and National Multifamily Housing Council (NMHC) had a round table committee to
15
study the issue on July 31, 2014 (Daggers, 2014). In a press release ICC Board President
Stephen Jones, CBO said:
We have noted a series of recent fires that have struck buildings under construction. Once
we identify common causes, participants will explore strategies so the building industry
might prevent or mitigate the primary causes of these incidents.
In a report entitled, “Fires in Residential Properties Under Construction or Undergoing Major
Renovation Other Than One- or Two-Family Homes,” (Campbell, 2012) the NFPA found that:
…fires in residential properties, excluding one- or two-family homes which were under
construction or undergoing major renovation from 2007 through 2011. U.S. fire departments
responded to an estimated average of 830 fires (380 non-confined fires and 450 confined
fires) in properties under construction. These fires caused an estimated average of 12 civilian
injuries, 70 firefighter injuries, and $56 million in direct property damage per year from 2007
to 2011. No civilian deaths were reported at these fires. In addition, there were an estimated
400 fires (290 non-confined fires and 100 confined fires) per year were reported in properties
undergoing major renovation. These fires caused an average of one civilian fatality, eight
civilian injuries, 60 firefighter injures, and $17 million in direct property damage per year.
Chapter 120-3-3, Rules and Regulations of the Safety Fire Commissioner adopt the
applicable fire codes and standards which are mandatory throughout the state of Georgia. This
document adopted the 2012 edition of the International Fire Code, with state amendments for
portable fire extinguishers and apparatus access (Georgia Commisioner of Insurance, 2014).
This document also adopts the NFPA 241, 2013 Edition, Standard for Safeguarding
Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations.
Title 15 of Georgia Law adopts the ICC Building Code for mandatory statewide use as
found in (9) (B) (i) of § 8-2-20 (Title 8, Buildings and Housing, 2014). The Georgia Department
16
of Community Affairs (DCA) is responsible for adopting current editions of the codes and
amendments to the ICC. Code Section 8-22-20 (D) specifies the DCA Codes shall “specifically
not include the Georgia State Fire Code as adopted by the Safety Fire Commissioner pursuant to
Code Section 25-2-13 nor shall any state minimum standard code be less restrictive than the
Georgia State Fire Code.”
Both the 2012 International Fire Code and the 2012 International Building Code and
address safety during construction in the areas of: apparatus access, mitigating fire hazards,
owner’s responsibility for fire protection, portable fire extinguishers, precautions against fire,
safeguarding roofing operations, temporary standpipes, and water supply for fire protection of
buildings under construction (International Code Council, 2012).
Perhaps the most salient, and most underused code is the NFPA 241, 2013 Edition,
Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations (National Fire
Protection Association, 2013). This standard includes “requirements address temporary
construction equipment and storage; processes and hazards such as hot work, waste disposal, and
explosive materials; utilities; fire protection; and safeguarding construction and alteration,
roofing, demolition, and underground operations.” In addition, NFPA 241 requires “where
automatic sprinkler protection is provided; the installation shall be placed in service as soon as
practicable.” For a complete list of requirement headings, see Appendix 1.
The 2007 edition of NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, (NFPA, 2007) was
revised to add a section to remove temporary construction protective caps on sprinklers. See
NFPA 13: 8.3.1.5, “Protective caps and straps shall be removed from all sprinklers prior to the
time when the sprinkler system is placed in service.” Furthermore, the Annex to NFPA 13
A.8.3.1.5.2 of this section notes the following:
17
Protective caps and straps can be removed from upright sprinklers, from sprinklers that
are fitted with sprinkler guards, and from sprinklers not likely to be subject to damage
due to construction activities or other events. In general, protective straps and caps should
not be removed until construction activities or other events have progressed to the point
where the sprinklers will not be subjected to conditions that could cause them to be
damaged. Consideration should be given to leaving the protective caps and straps in place
where other construction work is expected to take place, adjacent to the sprinklers
following their installation, until that activity is complete. Protective caps and straps on
sidewall and pendent sprinklers, for example, should be left in place pending installation
of the wall and ceiling systems and then removed as finish escutcheons are being
installed. In retrofit applications, with minimal follow-on trade construction activity, and
with upright sprinklers, it would be reasonable to remove the caps and straps immediately
following the installation on the sprinkler piping.
Research by Michael Sinsigalli (Sinsigalli, 2008) indicated the Life Safety Code best addressed
those factors common to casualty and structural building loss through fires as opposed to the
International Fire Code. It is noted that this research was based primarily on the requirements
for new construction and not building under construction.
Researchers in Australia studied the increasingly common practice of occupancy of
“construction zone interfacing” in the process of developing interim fire safety strategy for
partially occupied buildings (Magrabi & Choi, 2012). They noted “statistics have shown that
there is an increased risk in the construction areas, which result in an increased risk to occupant
life safety in the co-located occupied zones.”
18
Mat Chibbaro, P.E. studied the protection and prevention features of different phases in
the construction: design, site work, introduction of hazards, building erection, interior work and
enclosure, occupancy, and demolition phases (Chibbaro, 2009). Chibbaro discussed two critical
alliances that must be established early during construction, and maintained through the
construction: design and construction team with both the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and
the emergency responders, although a single AHJ is sufficient when he / she has the ability to
speak on behalf of the first responders.
In a series of articles entitled, “Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition,”
author Vincent Dunn (Dunn, 2008) observed, “Buildings under construction or demolition are
dangerous places; and when they are on fire, extremely dangerous.”
In the second series, Vincent Dunn examined the tactical challenges and techniques
involved in firefighting in buildings under construction and demolition. Dunn also identified
problems such as burning embers, construction hoist collapse, asbestos removal, and fire
protection systems (Dunn, Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition, 2008).
Dunn examined the perils of firefighting in high rises which, in an interview, he describes
as the most difficult occupancy challenge in firefighting. Dunn noted “construction engineers
state that within 24 hours of pouring, the entire floor can collapse on firefighters if the wood
formwork below has been destroyed by fire.” He also notes “experience has shown the most
serious fires (occur) in a building under construction, and the most serious floor collapses occur
during a fire in the formwork.”
Summary
In general, there was an abundance of existing research on the technical problem of fires
in buildings under construction, though there was little supporting research on fire dynamics of
19
large wood buildings. The existing research was technical in nature however and, did not
address the question of how to implement or enforce in terms of an “adaptive challenge.”
(Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). The abundance of existing research and literature on
means and methods for safeguard allowed a “gap” analysis and more focus on the adaptive
challenge. Perhaps the most interesting and alarming research was NFPA’s firefighter fatalities
statics which influenced the research to include firefighter safety in addition to property loss.
Assumptions and limitations
This research did not address workplace safety that is typically governed by the United
States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 29 CFR
1926 (Labor, 2014). Furthermore, this research did not directly address a contractor’s “means
and methods” and workplace practices as SSFR has no jurisdiction on workplace safety or means
and methods. Such exercising of an undelegated power would be ultra-vires.
It is further noted that both 2012 International Fire Code and the 2012 International
Building Code are identical in the application of these requirements. For the purpose of this
research, where there is duplication of the code sections, the International Fire Code will be used
as the sole source.
The following disclaimer was requested from a COSS legal consultant: research and
analysis contained in this paper are formulated by the author and should not be construed as the
position of the Sandy Springs Fire Marshal’s office and not related to any specific incident.
20
Procedures
The research method is descriptive; the research approaches are literature review, survey
instruments and interviews.
The literature review examined research in the fire dynamics of wood, building behaviors
under fire conditions, fires in buildings under construction and related laws and regulations.
A survey instrument entitled “Fires in Buildings Under Construction” was created to gain
an understanding of what other fire departments are doing regarding this issue using “Survey
Monkey” software. The survey questions were vetted by former fire marshal, Douglas Brown,
CFO. The survey was published on August 25, 2014 at 2:30pm and closed on September 4,
2014 at 2: 49pm. A total of 104 participants took the survey with 4 abstaining from answering
the questions.
The survey was sent to the Georgia Fire Inspector’s Association, the Metro Fire Chief’s
Association, (2) Executive Fire Officer Program (EFOP) classes and was posted to the author’s
Linked-in home page and on EPARADE, an online forum for fire safety and prevention
professionals, on August 26, 2014. The survey was also posted to the LA Fire Marshal
Exchange and an anonymous person. A statement of anonymity and confidentiality was
included in the e-mails and internet postings. The first two organization targeted a response from
surrounding jurisdictions and those in the State of Georgia. Two former EFOP classes were
selected to gain a representation of chief officers. The linked-in page was targeted to capture
many of the author’s 335 connections, the most of which are in the field of fire prevention.
Finally, it is anticipated that the largest response was originated from the EPARADE group
website which would target fire prevention officials nationally.
The survey asked:
21
1. What fire prevention codes do you enforce for buildings under construction?
2. What code issues do you enforce for demolition and new construction activities?
3. What is the most challenging requirement to enforce for your office (selection will
rearrange order)
4. Does your jurisdiction permit occupancy of a building under partial completion
(TCO)?
5. Has your jurisdiction experienced a fire loss during construction in the past 10 years?
6. If there was a fire loss, what was the estimated combined amount of the loss?
7. If there was a fire loss, what was the causation of the fire?
8. Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?
The surveys were active for nine days. Historical data indicates that most of the responses are
received in the first three work days of the publishing of the survey. The University of Texas at
Austin, Department of Instructional Assessment Resources (IAR, 2007) provides guidelines for
maximizing response rates. They recommend “giving respondents a sufficient amount of time to
complete the survey. For online surveys, 7-10 days are sufficient.”
The interview was conducted on September 5, 2015 with Chief Vincent Dunn, a 42-year
veteran of FDNY and a Deputy Chief (ret.). Dunn has a master’s degree in urban studies; a
bachelor’s degree in sociology and an associate’s degree in fire administration form Queen’s
College, City University of New York. He is the author of several textbooks on firefighting
including, Collapse of Burning Buildings, and is a nationally known lecturer. Dunn was
instrumental in influencing the research in the areas of onsite hazards and on-duty companies’
visitation of job sites.
22
An interview was also conducted on September 3, 2014 with Chief Alan Perdue,
Executive Director of the Safer Buildings Coalition. “He is credentialed as a Chief Fire Officer
(CFO) and Fire Marshal (FM) through the Center for Public Safety Excellence Commission for
Professional Credentialing and has an Associate's Degree in Fire Protection Technology, a
Bachelor's Degree in Management and Ethics and is also a graduate of the National Fire
Academy's Executive Fire Officer Program.” In addition, “Chief Perdue currently serves as the
International Director representing Fire & Life Safety on the International Association of Fire
Chiefs Board of Directors, Commissioner on the CPSE Commission for Professional
Credentialing, the Governor’s fire service appointee to the North Carolina State Building Code
Council and on the International Accreditation Services Technical Advisory Committee for Fire
& Life Safety Departments.” (Executive Director, 2014). Purdue discussed the overall concepts
discussed by the ICC roundtable as well as the direct and indirect costs of fires in buildings
under construction.
Limitations and Assumptions
Question no three asked, “What is the most challenging requirement to enforce for your
office” using a ranking structure. It proved to be confusing to some of the participants. Some
had difficulties making selections. When made one selection, then it put a number in all of them
from the top to bottom in numerical order.
The research would have benefited if a second survey were generated to capture the input
of contractors and owners to gain a better understanding of their perspectives and concerns.
23
Results
Question one asked, “What problems exist for the fire prevention and mitigation for
buildings under construction in Sandy Springs?” The NFPA statistics indicate that eight to ten
firefighters are killed per every 100,000 incidents. By comparison, fires in one and two family
buildings kill four firefighters per 100,000 incidents (Dunn, Fires in Buildings Under
Construction and Demolition, 2008)
From a strategic standpoint there are two overarching problems which the Heifetz –
Linsky (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009) research would classify as “adaptive challenges.”
The two adaptive challenges will involve changing of the mindset of the contractors and building
owners to address and become mindful of the threat to property and loss of life from fires during
construction. The second challenge is persuading leaders who employ outdated fire ground
tactics to ensure that the “acceptable level of risk is directly related to the potential to save lives
or property.” (NIOSH, 2010).
From a technical standpoint, the most pressing problems for SSFR include the following
areas:
Potential Causation:
• Incendiary fires (arson)
• Burning Embers
• Propane explosions
Prevention and mitigation
• Site access
• Fire protection systems
• Compartmentation
24
• Housekeeping
• Safety Program
• Standpipes
• Fire extinguishers
Construction types
• Combustible construction – large apartments
• High-rise construction
• Below ground construction
With the technical challenges aside, clearly, the most challenging problem is with whom to
implement enforcement of regulations for construction /demolition activities. The cause of the
problem is not awareness of the technical challenges, but lack / imbalance of adequate staffing
for new construction activities of plan review and inspections. Currently, the there is only one
staff member, a fire protection engineer, performing all work including plan review and
inspection of close to 2 billion dollars of construction annually. There is a pool of eight part-
time fire inspectors who are assigned to one full-time person to do existing construction
inspections. At SSFR, staffing for existing buildings takes precedence over new construction
that is the opposite of most fire departments.
An analysis of a similar, albeit larger department shows 12 individuals assigned to plan
review, new construction inspections and hydrants (Appendix 5). Though they are a larger
department, they managed $398,898,333 in new construction in 2013; SSFR managed
approximately 1.3 billion in the same period (Westbrook, 2014). The same department assigned
six individuals to perform existing constructions that is a ratio of 2 to 1 in favor of new
construction. At SSFR, the ratio is approximately 6 to 1 in favor of existing construction. From
25
a construction cost perspective then, an equivalent staffing at SSFR would be 36 persons for new
construction. Thus, even with the adaptive challenges are solved, there is the lingering problem
of how to enforce the regulations.
Question two asked, “What local, state and federal requirements apply to fire prevention
procedures at buildings under construction?” There are two principle codes and standards that
are applicable: NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition
Operations and the IFC. The 2013 edition of NFPA 241 is adopted statewide through the 120-3-
3, Rules and Regulations of the Safety Fire Commissioner of OCI (Georgia Commisioner of
Insurance, 2014). The 2012 edition of the IFC is adopted statewide by the DCA (Title 8,
Buildings and Housing, 2014).
Georgia Law, Title 25-2-13 (g) dictates that in the event of a conflict between the NFPA
and ICC code, the NFPA code shall govern. Conflict resolution is typically accomplished by
analyzing each code section. Thus, NFPA 241 would govern with supplements from the IFC.
The Environmental Protection Agency regulates air quality and health issues such as
asbestos containing materials (ACMs) (EPA, 2014). The agency requires that the removal of
asbestos be enclosed on all sides to prevent migration to adjacent properties. This can lead to a
fire hazard by creating a windowless building, which was a factor that led to the deaths of two
FDNY fighters in the Deutsche Bank building of August 18, 2007 (NIOSH, 2010). The COSS
cannot enforce any provisions under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
While, outside the scope of this research, worker safety is largely governed by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) which began under President Richard
Nixon on April 28, 1971 (Labor, 2014). Only the Federal Government can enforce the
requirements of the OSHA Act. While there is minimal requirements for fire prevention in the
26
OSHA Act, this research focuses on laws, rules and regulation in Georgia for the enforcement of
fire prevention and mitigation for buildings under construction.
The issue of “construction zone interfacing” (Magrabi & Choi, 2012) or danger of the
practice of partial occupancy of uncompleted buildings cannot be addressed without input from
other departments including Building, Land Disturbance, Transportation and Zoning.
Construction zone interfacing is a complex problem that centers on the financial interest of
developers and interest of the COSS including life safety.
Question three asked, “What are other jurisdictions doing to prevent fires in buildings
under construction?” The answer to this question was obtained through the use of a survey
instrument that measured responses from fire prevention staff across the United States (Appendix
7).
Table 1
What fire prevention codes do you enforce for buildings under construction?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
International Fire Code (IFC) 75.8% 75 International Building Code (IBC) 52.5% 52 NFPA 241 13.1% 13 NFPA 101 37.4% 37 None 1.0% 1 Other (please specify) 10
The fascinating result of this question revealed that NFPA 241 is used by only 13% of the
jurisdictions. This document contains the most comprehensive guidance for safeguarding
construction from fire. Interestingly, NFPA 101 is utilized by 34% of the respondents, which
contain little guidance for construction and demolition activities.
27
Table 2
What code issues do you enforce for demolition and new construction activities?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
Housekeeping 72.0% 72 Fire Extinguishers 86.0% 86 Temporary Standpipes 54.0% 54 Temporary Apparatus Access 85.0% 85 Maintain Compartmentation - Fire Walls 31.0% 31 Prompt Activation of Sprinkler System 28.0% 28 Flammable and Combustible Liquids and Flammable Gases 63.0% 63
Explosives and Blasting 46.0% 46 Fire Safety Program 38.0% 38 Temporary Heating Devices 52.0% 52 Scaffolding, Shoring, and Forms 12.0% 12 Fire Protection During Demolition 58.0% 58 Safeguarding Roofing Operations 20.0% 20 Other (please specify) 12
Other responses included: electrical, requirements under the Building Code, Fire Code,
security, water supply, hazardous materials inspection prior to demolition, and fire protection
during construction. These responses indicate omissions from the original sampling.
28
Table 3.
29
It is not surprising that safeguarding roofing operations (due to access) and scaffolding,
shoring and forms (due to the perception of conflict with the contractor’s means of ways). The
fire safety program, which is a principle result of this research, seems to be relatively difficult to
enforce.
Table 4
This question generated 26 “other” responses. These responses offer interesting insights
and options for limiting or resting partial occupancy.
• Depends on certain conditions and type of occupancy
• But would review on the case by case basis.
• Only if all fire protection systems are working in the occupied areas
• Special circumstances
• Limited to installation of owner materials
• Life Safety issues MUST be addressed / corrected prior to occupancy
30
• Will not approve a TCO without all of the life safety issues in and approved
(AS/Alarm/Access)
• For up to sixty days
• We have recently, but it has only encouraged more projects to not want to be completed.
• We issue certificates of completion on completed areas
• If sprinkler system is operational or 24-hour fire watch
• Only to move furniture in and employees to set up specific areas
• As long as all life safety features are in place
• This would be done on a case by case basis.
• Only for installing supply & equipment not for business use
• If the building is safe for the occupants
• The Building Officials Office does with the FM Approval
• If all fire and life safety requirements are met.
• All Life Safety Features must be complete.
• Extremely rare, all fire protection must be in place and operable.
• All life safety devices must be fully functional
• With all life safety systems in place, egress, lighting, sprinklers and fire alarms
• Only if all life safety issues are addressed.
• Retail space must have base building completed with FA and sprinkler prior to CO of any
tenant space
31
Table 5
Has your jurisdiction experienced a fire loss during construction in the past ten years?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
No 47.5% 47 One 14.1% 14 Two 22.2% 22 Three 9.1% 9 Four 1.0% 1 Five or more 6.1% 6 Other, (please specify) 7
The results of this survey indicate the vastness of this problem. 52.5% of the jurisdiction
experienced at least one construction fire in their jurisdiction and over 6% experienced more than
5 fire in the past 10 years.
Table 6
If there was a fire loss, what was the estimated combined amount of the loss?
Answer Options Response Percent
Response Count
None 32.9% 26 Less than $500,000 39.2% 31 Between $500,000 and 1 Million 8.9% 7 Between 1 and 5 Million 11.4% 9 Between 5 and 10 Million 3.8% 3 Over 10 Million 3.8% 3 Other (please specify) 5
answered question 79 skipped question 24
Twenty-four individuals skipped this question in lieu of answering none that indicates
an apparent flaw in the questioning. The significance of this question lies in the catastrophic
loss experienced by almost 18% of the respondents.
32
Table 7
The results of this table conflict somewhat with NFPA’s statistics. Open flame embers continue
to be one of the leading causes of fires in building under construction.
Table 8
Do you have any other comments, questions, or concerns?
• A permit program helps, e.g. cutting permits, installation permits, etc.
• Question #3 answer selection is jacked up.
• We also encourage our on-duty operations crews to tour our larger construction
sites so that the SFD stays visible to the project and to forward any concerns they
identify to our Fire & Life Safety Division for follow-up. We still do have initial
33
C of O approval power, so our personnel are required to be in all new buildings
several times during the actual construction process.
• The number of this type of fire is very small, but the dollar loss is high and very
makes the news in a big way. These type of fire should all be defense in nature for
the fire service. These are vacant premises, and if you are using IFC section 311,
you should have the placards system in place.
• It is a building under construction stay out of it if it is on fire.
• We are limited in our involvement with the construction and what we can enforce
by the county building department and limitations made by the state
This section offered some great suggestion, including the third bullet that suggest the on-duty
operations crews to tour their larger construction sites for visibility for the project. They then
forward any concerns they identify to their Fire & Life Safety Division for follow-up.
Question four asked, “What are the recommendations for the fire prevention and
mitigation for buildings under construction in Sandy Springs?” The answer to this question lies
in the adaptive challenge: changing of the mindset of the contractors and building owners to
address and become mindful of the threat to property and loss of life from fires during
construction. Thus, the strategy is not technical, though the tactics are.
A critical component to all of fire prevention is education. It is important for the
stakeholders: the contractors, subcontractors, property managers and owners to understand the
risks, hazards and consequences of fires in buildings under construction and their respective
responsibilities. Due to the complex nature of the subject and the general unwillingness of
individuals to fully understand the written regulations distributed by a governmental agency, a
short graphic “awareness program” is desirable, especially for large construction projects.
34
Thus, the goal is for the stakeholder to assume ownership for their responsibilities. The
strategy is the education of the stakeholders and the tactics is the delivery of an “awareness
program.”
The program should be designed around the guidelines of NFPA 1041, Standard for Fire
Service Instructor Qualifications, and include a lesson plan that has been adapted to the unique
requirements of the students and organized to maximize learning. The training will be a
cognitive type training with PowerPoint and lecture instructional methods. A methodology for
measurement of the degree of success presentation shall be included.
The recommend outline of the program is recommended to include:
A. Introduction
B. Objectives
C. Background and significance – establish “why”
D. Roles and responsibilities per NFPA 241, Chapter 7
E. Technical requirements – follow NFPA 241 outline (Appendix 1)
F. E Questions
There following are recommended prevention measures (Sinsigalli, 2008) which should be
expanded on in Section E, Technical Requirements based on the requirements of NFPA 241 and
NFPA 13:
• Maintain good housekeeping.
• Maintain adequate access to and within construction sites.
• Maintain fire department access to the site.
• Access must be provided to upper floors in buildings under construction with
stairs.
35
• Provide temporary standpipe and fdc.
• Provide portable fire extinguishers.
• Maintain fire protection systems, activate as early as practicable.
o Ensure that construction caps are removed from sprinkler systems once in
service.
• Compartmentation - fire barriers or smoke barriers that are to be provided in the
occupied building are installed and functional as soon as possible.
o Self-closing and automatic-closing doors are not obstructed from closing
by construction materials or equipment.
o Temporary measures should be provided to ensure all fire doors and
openings in fire walls are sealed shut.
Further consideration should be given to including a train-the-trainer program that the
contractor can give to his or her sub-contractors. In addition, Chief Alan Purdue mentioned that
the American Paper Association is considering an informational video on fires in buildings under
construction.
The second challenge is persuading leaders who employ outdated fire ground tactics to
ensure that the “acceptable level of risk is directly related to the potential to save lives or
property.” (NIOSH, 2010). This challenge will be addresses in a similar fashion, education,
however, it will be tailored to the SSFR battalion commanders and captains. The training will
stress the perils and available tactics and briefly discuss some of the applicable requirements of
NFPA 241 such as access roads, fire hydrants, fdcs and standpipes.
36
Fortunately, there has been an evolving cultural swing in the fire service to factor risk
assessment when committing firefighters, albeit far too slow. The NIOSH Report (NIOSH,
2010) noted above states the following with respect to a risk management plan:
According to NFPA 1500 §A.8.3.3, “the acceptable level of risk is directly related to the
potential to save lives or property. Where there is no potential to save lives, the risk to the
fire department members should be evaluated in proportion to the ability to save property
of value. When there is no ability to save lives or property, there is no justification to
expose firefighters to any avoidable risk, and defensive fire suppression operations are an
appropriate strategy.”
Retired New York City Deputy Fire Chief Vincent Dunn states the following: “When no other
person’s life is in danger, the life of a firefighter has a higher priority than fire containment.”
Chief Dunn also states “The protection of life is the highest goal of the fire service…When a life
is clearly threatened, there is no risk too great. At most fires, however, lives are not clearly
endangered. At most fires, then, the priority of firefighting is the protection of the firefighters’
lives.” (Dunn, Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition, 2008).
Discussion
This research was supported by Homer’s (Robertson, 2011) observation that construction
site dangers and rapid spread of fire through exposed construction frame and lack of
compartmentation and was noted in the Introductions a critical pitfall to firefighters.
The results in Question three did not match the statistics of the NFPA (NFPA Fire
Analysis and Research Division, 2001) which found that the “leading causes of fires in buildings
under construction are flammable or suspicious (39.5%); open flame, embers or torches (20.8%);
37
and heating equipment (9.7%). This research indicated that burning embers were the leading
cause of fires followed by arson.
Pengalaman (Pengalaman, 2012), noted that NFPA research indicated “The property loss
per fire incident resulting from fires in buildings under construction is higher than most structure
fire losses.” This research was unable to substantiate this data using table 1 in Appendix 6,
though given the magnitude of recent losses Pengalaman would likely be found correct.
Flemming (Flemming, 2009) examined the potential consequences when the automatic
sprinkler system is not operational as required by NFPA 241 which was fundamental in guiding
the research regarding timely operation of the suppression system.
The (SFPE) Engineering Guide to Fire Risk Assessment (Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, 2006) was useful to answer Question no 4 for the use of fire risk methodologies.
NFPA 550, Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree, offers guidance to show the relationships of
fire prevention and fire damage control strategies for building under construction (NFPA, 2012)
were not particularly useful at this stage of research, but may be useful in the presentation phase.
The ICC, NAHB and MHC round table committee to study the issue on July 31, 2014
(Daggers, 2014) provided information excellent guidance through an interview with Chief Alan
Purdue, who was the moderator at the meeting. At the time of the publishing of this research, the
final report was not available.
Campbell’s report “Fires in Residential Properties Under Construction or Undergoing
Major Renovation Other Than One- or Two-Family Homes,” (Campbell, 2012) provided a great
insight to injuries, fatalities and property loss which became a backbone supporting the problem.
Chapter 120-3-3, Rules and Regulations of the Safety Fire Commissioner (Georgia
Commisioner of Insurance, 2014) adopts the NFPA 241, 2013 Edition, Standard for
38
Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations, which was found to provide
the most comprehensive requirements (Appendix 1).
Georgia Code Section (9) (B) (i) of § 8-2-20 (Title 8, Buildings and Housing, 2014).
And Code Section 8-22-20 (D) were used to establish adoption of the IFC.
Both the 2012 International Fire Code and the 2012 International Building Code were
cross-examined against NFPA 241 and found to be less restrictive (International Code Council,
2012).
NFPA 241, 2013 Edition, Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and
Demolition Operations (National Fire Protection Association, 2013) was used a principle source
of requirements and was referenced in the solution to Question 4. The requirement of NFPA 241
“where automatic sprinkler protection is provided, the installation shall be placed in service as
soon as practicable” was very salient in providing guidance on when the system is to be in
service. (Appendix 1)
The 2007 edition of NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems, (NFPA, 2007) was
revised to add a section to remove temporary construction caps on sprinklers. This new code
requirement was perhaps the most revealing code section discovered in the research. Virtually
no jurisdiction in the Metro Atlanta area enforce this requirement and as part of this research,
these jurisdictions were reminded of this requirement via e-mail correspondence.
Research by Michael Sinsigalli (Sinsigalli, 2008) indicted the Life Safety Code best
addressed those factors common to casualty and structural building loss through fires as opposed
to the International Fire Code. This premise applies to new construction as NFPA 101 does not
apply to buildings under construction. Construction types in new construction were outside of
this research though tall wood buildings were addressed in the Background and Significance
39
section. Robert Gerard and David Barber’ research on “Fire Safety Challenges of Tall Wood
Buildings” (Gerard & Barber, 2013) led to a Recommendation.
Magrabi & Choi studied the increasingly common practice of occupancy of “construction
zone interfacing” in the process of developing interim fire safety strategy for partially occupied
buildings (Magrabi & Choi, 2012) which was useful in establishing the danger of the practice of
partial occupancy of uncompleted buildings. This research led to a Recommendation for further
study by SSFR.
Mat Chibbaro, P.E. (Chibbaro, 2009) discussed two critical alliances that must be
established early during construction, and maintained through the construction: design and
construction team with both the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) and the emergency
responders which reinforced the importance of all stakeholders, not just the fire service. The
answer to question 4 used this understanding in the development of an awareness program.
Vincent Dunn (Dunn, 2008) research was especially helpful in guiding the framework for
research of questions 1 and 4, “Dunn’s tactical challenges and techniques involved in firefighting
in buildings under construction and demolition will be incorporated in the on program for SSFR
firefighters and fire officers per the results of question 4. Dunn’s observation of the floor
collapse from scaffolding fires was not supported in the survey instrument which is likely
attributed to the sporadic attributes of each jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions are rural or do not
have the challenges of high rises.
Question one was discovered to contain two components to its solution: an adaptive and
technical challenge. Since there was an abundance of research on the technical challenge and
none on the adaptive challenge and because the focus of Executive Leadership is on adaptive
challenges (Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009), the latter became the focus of the
40
recommendations. The technical problems will be explored and illustrated in the awareness
program in question 4. The principle finding regarding staffing will provide data for further
research.
Question two was straightforward and the outcome was clear. NFPA 341 would be the
most relevant document for safeguarding fires during construction in Georgia. It should be noted
that many states do not adopt NFPA codes or standards. In these cases, the IFC should be used.
Question three offered some of the most useful information such as suggestions for
partial occupancy for further study. The survey instrument, though fully vetted had a technical
flaw with Question 3. Additionally, the size of the department should have been captured to
correlate with property loss and frequency of fires. The heat source statistics differed somewhat
from the statistics of the NFPA which found the “leading heat sources were radiated or
conducted heat from operating equipment (190 fires, 23%), unclassified heat from powered
equipment (170 fires, 20%), a spark, ember, or flame from operating equipment (100 fires, 12%),
an unclassified hot or smoldering object (60 fires, 7%), and arcing (60 fires, 7%). A spark,
ember, or flame from operating equipment caused the greatest share of direct property damage,
the estimated annual average of $13 million, or 24% of the total.” (NFPA Fire Analysis and
Research Division, 2001). The results would have benefited if the same terminology were used
to describe the problem that is, the survey and NFPA should have been correlated.
Question four presented the most substantial result of the research: an awareness
program for all stakeholders with a separate program tailored to SSFR to address the second
adaptive challenge of firefighter safety.
SSFR will direct benefit from the awareness program which will acclimate firefighters
and officers to the hazards, statistical fatalities and property loss of buildings under construction.
41
The program will reinforce the need for risk assessment. Finally, the recommendations for
further study are attainable in the short term and are anticipated to be implemented in
conjunction with the “awareness program.” Future readers should consider adopting a similar
awareness program for stakeholders and firefighters. Readers should also consider some of the
recommendations, especially the NIOSH (NIOSH, 2010) recommendations.
Summary
In general, there was an abundance of existing research on the technical problem of fires
in buildings under construction, though there was little supporting research on fire dynamics of
large wood buildings. The existing research was technical in nature however and, generally, did
not address the question of how to implement or enforce in terms of an “adaptive challenge.”
(Heifetz, Grashow, & Linsky, 2009). The abundance of existing research and literature on
means and methods for safeguard allowed a “gap” analysis and more focus on the adaptive
challenge. Perhaps the most interesting and alarming research was the NFPA’s firefighter
fatalities statics which influenced the research to include firefighter safety in addition to property
loss.
The principle recommendation from this report is to produce a document that can be
distributed to contractors that identifies the problem(s) and highlights problem areas with
specific references to NFPA 241 and the IFC used as a supplement. The document is
recommended to have a similar title as NFPA 241, Standard for Safeguarding Construction,
Alteration, and Demolition Operations. This document should be attached as a reference
assuming in doing so does not violate state or national copyright laws.
42
Recommendations
Those procedures / instruments that could benefit SSFR in the delivery of safeguarding
construction sites from the effects of fire have been identified as follows:
1. Pursuant the results in question 4, awareness programs shall be created that are
tailored to stakeholder and firefighters by 10-31-2014. In the interim, a demolition
and safeguarding buildings under construction shall be created by utilizing
Appendices 2 and 3.
2. Further study and analysis should be given to NFPA 3, the standard on commissioning which
is to be issued shortly, which “promises to add additional complications to the subject of
when to bring a fire sprinkler system online during the building construction process
(Flemming, 2009).”
3. Further study should be given to the staffing of the New Construction Division of the fire
marshal’s office. Currently, there is only one staff member performing all work including
plan review of approximately 1.6 billion dollars annually. Other jurisdictions studied suggest
this section is significantly understaffed (Appendix 5).
4. New code proposals to allow taller wood buildings should be studied by organizations such
as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the NFPA with an
emphasis on the fire science of the fire dynamics of wood behavior under fire conditions.
5. The results from Question three should be used to study alternatives or imposing additional
requirements to enhance the occupant’s safety:
a. The following two recommendations are derived from the fire in New York City that
killed two firefighters (NIOSH, 2010): Similar in nature to NIOSH Recommendation
#9, SSFR “should conduct pre-incident planning inspections of buildings within their
jurisdictions to facilitate the development of safe fireground strategies and tactics.”
Use NFPA 1620 Recommended Practice for Pre-Incident Planning, 2010 Edition,
43
specifically § 4.4.1. Furthermore, Dunn recognized the FDNY companies inspect the
construction and demolition sites ever two weeks and review the owner’s pre-fire
plan during that time. He notes that their visibility influences the contractor to be
reminded and focus on fire safety. (Appendix 4)
b. Similar in nature to NIOSH Recommendation 15, SSFR “should develop a reporting
system to inform the fire department of any ongoing, unique building construction
activities (such as deconstruction or asbestos abatement) that would adversely affect
a fire response.”
Lastly, it is universally acknowledged that southern yellow pine burns equally throughout
the country. It’s not a matter of if, but when the Georgia fire service will have a significant fire
loss at a building under construction or demolition. It is imperative to SSFR to remain proactive
in the effort to safeguard such building to prevent property loss and most importantly, maintain
life safety. It is important always to remember an observation by Chief Dunn (Dunn 2008),
“These buildings are deadlier than a completed building.”
44
Reference List
Adams, D. (2013). FIRE CAUSE & ORIGIN REPORT. Sandy Springs: SSFR.
Adams, D. (2014). Projected Workload 2014 (Confidential). Sandy Springs: SSFR.
Associated Press. (March, 25 2014). Fire levels under-construction Houston apartment complex.
Retrieved from FoxNews: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/26/houston-fire-crews-
respond-to-massive-fire-at-construction-site/
Campbell, R. (2012). Fires in Residential Properties Under Construction or Undergoing Major
Renovation Other Than One- or Two-Family Homes. Quincy: NFPA.
Chibbaro, M. (2009, January 1). Construction Fire Safety: Phase by Phase. Retrieved from Fire
Protection engineering: http://magazine.sfpe.org/fire-protection-design/construction-fire-
safety-phase-phase
Daggers, S. (2014, May 7). ICC, NAHB, NMHC Will Initiate Safety Review of Recent Fires in
Buildings under Construction. Retrieved from ICC International Code Council:
http://www.iccsafe.org/newsroom/Pages/NR050714-FireSafetyReview.aspx
Dunn, V. (2008). Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition. Firehouse Magazine,
22-27.
Dunn, V. (2008). Fires in Buildings Under Construction and Demolition. Firehouse Magazine,
24-27.
Edgar, R. E. (20012). Hydrant maintenance: in-house or out-sourced?
EPA. (2014, May 19). Environment Protection Agency. Retrieved from Asbestos:
http://www2.epa.gov/asbestos
45
Executive Director. (2014). Retrieved from Safer Buildings: http://www.saferbuildings.org/who-
we-are.html
FEMA. (2012). Executive Analysis of Fire Service Operations in Emergency Management,
EASFSOM Student Manual. Emmitsburg, MD: FEMA.
Flemming, R. (2009, January 1). Fire Sprinkler Systems During Construction. Retrieved from
Fire Protection Engineering: http://magazine.sfpe.org/sprinklers/fire-sprinkler-systems-
during-construction
Georgia Commissioner of Insurance. (2014, January 1). 120-3-3. Rules and Regulations of the
Safety Fire Commissioner. Atlanta, Georgia.
Gerard, R., & Barber, D. (2013, December). Fire Safety Challenges of Tall Wood Buildings.
Retrieved from NFPA Online: http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-protection-research-
foundation/reports-and-proceedings/building-and-life-safety/fire-resistance/fire-safety-
challenges-of-tall-wood-buildings
Heifetz, R., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of Adaptive Leadership. Boston:
Harvard Business Press.
Home page. (2014, August 14). Retrieved from Inspection Reports online.net:
https://www.inspectionreportsonline.net/index.aspx
IAR. (2007, September 7). Conduct Research. Retrieved from Instructional Asset Resources:
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/ctl/assessment/iar/teaching/gather/method/survey-
Response.php?task=research
International Code Council. (2012). International Fire Code. Chicago: Internation Code Council.
Labor, U. S. (2014). Regulations (Standards - 29 CFR). Retrieved from Occupational Safety and
Health Administration:
46
https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owasrch.search_form?p_doc_type=STANDARDS&p
_toc_level=1&p_keyvalue=Construction
Magrabi, A., & Choi, J. (2012). Partial Sight. FRM Journal, 30-33.
Nation Bureau of Economic Research. (2014, September 4). US Business Cycle Expansions and
Contractions. Retrieved from Nation Bureau of Economic Research:
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html
National Fire Protection Association. (2013). Standard for Safeguarding Construction,
Alteration, and Demolition Operations. Quincy: NFPA.
Naum, C. J. (2011, January 4). Four Alarm Fire Apartment Complex Under Construction (NJ).
Retrieved from Buildings on Fire.com: http://buildingsonfire.com/four-alarm-fire-
apartment-complex-under-construction-nj
NFPA. (2007). NFPA 13, Installation of Sprinkler Systems. Quincy: NFPA.
NFPA. (2012). Guide to the Fire Safety Concepts Tree. Quincy: NFPA.
NFPA Fire Analysis and Research Division. (2001). Structure Fires in Vacant or Idle Properties,
or Properties under Construction, Demolition or Renovation. Quincy: NFPA.
NIOSH. (2010, August 10). Two Career Fire Fighters Die Following a Seven-Alarm Fire in a
High-Rise Building Undergoing Simultaneous Deconstruction and Asbestos Abatement—
New York. Retrieved from NIOSH:
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/fire/reports/face200737.html
Pengalaman, B. (2012, September). Fire Safety in Buildings under Construction. Retrieved from
Bright Star Editorial: http://sembangahad.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/fire-safety-in-
buildings-under-construction/
47
Robertson, H. (2011, January 1). Fires in Buildings Under Construction. Retrieved from
Firefighter Nation: http://www.firefighternation.com/article/training-0/fires-buildings-
under-construction
Sinsigalli, M. L. (2008). Comparision of the Retroactive code provisions of the Life Safety Code
and the international Fire Code. Emmitsburg: NFA.
Society of Fire Protection Engineers. (2006). SFPE Engineering Guide to Fire Risk Assessments.
Bethesda: SFPE.
Title 8, Buildings and Housing, (9) (B) (i) (Georgia Assembly 2014).
Westbrook, J. (2014, September 3). Construction. Marietta, GA, US.
48
Appendix 1 – Index of the NFPA 241 Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations Source: NFPA® 241 Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition Operations 2013 Edition Chapter 1 Administration 1.1 Scope 1.2 Purpose 1.3 Application 1.4 Equivalency 1.5 Units and Formulas Chapter 2 Referenced Publications 2.1 General 2.2 NFPA Publications 2.3 Other Publications 2.4 References for Extracts in Mandatory Sections Chapter 3 Definitions 3.1 General 3.2 NFPA Official Definitions 3.3 General Definitions Chapter 4 Temporary Construction, Equipment, and Storage 4.1 Application 4.2 Temporary Offices and Sheds 4.3 Temporary Enclosures 4.4 Equipment Chapter 5 Processes and Hazards 5.1 Hot Work 5.2 Temporary Heating Equipment 5.3 Smoking 5.4 Waste Disposal 5.5 Flammable and Combustible Liquids and Flammable Gases 5.6 Explosive Materials Chapter 6 Utilities 6.1 Electrical Chapter 7 Fire Protection 7.1 Fire Safety Program 7.2 Owner’s Responsibility for Fire Protection 7.3 Installation, Testing, and Maintenance 7.4 Fire Alarm Reporting 7.5 Access for Fire Fighting 7.6 Standpipes 7.7 First-Aid Fire-Fighting Equipment 7.8 Means of Egress Chapter 8 Safeguarding Construction and Alteration Operations
49
8.1 General 8.2 Scaffolding, Shoring, and Forms 8.3 Construction Material and Equipment Storage 8.4 Permanent Heating Equipment 8.5 Utilities 8.6 Building Separation Walls 8.7 Fire Protection During Construction Chapter 9 Safeguarding Roofing Operations 9.1 General 9.2 Asphalt and Tar Kettles 9.3 Single-Ply and Torch-Applied Roofing Systems 9.4 Fire Extinguishers for Roofing Operations 9.5 Fuel for Roofing Operations Chapter 10 Safeguarding Demolition Operations 10.1 General 10.2 Special Precautions 10.3 Temporary Heating Equipment 10.4 Smoking 10.5 Demolition Using Explosives 10.6 Utilities 10.7 Fire Cutoffs 10.8 Fire Protection During Demolition Chapter 11 Safeguarding Underground Operations 11.1 General 11.2 Emergency Procedures 11.3 Fire Detection, Protection, and Communications Systems 11.4 Electrical 11.5 Hazardous Operations and Procedures 11.6 Storage 11.7 Equipment Annex A Explanatory Material Annex B Informational References Index Appendix 2 – Sample Demolition Inspection Checklist Source: Bill Deatherage Associates 1. Site plan: Verify that the application for demolition permit be accompanied by a site plan showing to scale the size and location of all existing structures on the site, distances from lot lines, the established street grades and the proposed finished grades; and it shall be drawn in accordance with an accurate boundary line survey. The site plan shall show all construction to be demolished and the
50
location and size of all existing structures and construction that are to remain on the site or plot. Note the accuracy of the site plan. 2. Service connections: Verify that before a structure is demolished or removed, the owner or agent shall notify all utilities having service connections within the structure such as water, electric, gas, sewer and other connections. A permit to demolish or remove a structure shall not be issued until a release is obtained from the utilities, stating that their respective service connections and appurtenant equipment, such as meters and regulators, have been removed or sealed and plugged in a safe manner. Check all utilities to insure connections are disconnected. 3. Notice to adjoining owners of intent, demolition and excavation: Verify that when a written notice has been given by the applicant to the owners of adjoining each potentially affected lot (not across the street) for notice of building demolition it is at least one week prior to the commencement of work. Then a permit shall be granted for the removal of a building or structure. 4. Other laws: Mention to the demolition contractor that nothing herein contained shall be construed to nullify any rules, regulations or statutes of the state or federal agencies governing the protection of the public or workers from health or other hazards. The contractor must follow OSHA, IEPA, IDPH, and other state and federal rules for demolition. The contractor shall contact each agency. 5. Portable fire extinguishers: Verify that all buildings under demolition shall be provided with at least one portable fire extinguisher with a minimum 2-A: 20-B: C rating at each exit on all floor levels where combustible materials have accumulated. A portable fire extinguisher with a minimum 2-A: 20-B: C rating shall also be provided in every storage and construction shed. Additionally, at least one portable fire extinguisher shall be provided where special hazards, such as flammable or combustible liquid storage, exist. 6. Buildings under demolition: Verify that when the building is being demolished, and a standpipe exists within such a building, such standpipe shall be maintained in an operable condition so as to be available for use by the fire department. Such standpipe shall be demolished with the building but shall not be demolished more than one floor below the floor being demolished. 7. Maintenance: Verify that in case an existing party wall is intended to be used by the person who causes an excavation to be made, and such party wall is in good condition and sufficient for the use of both
51
the existing and proposed building, such person shall preserve the party wall from injury and shall support the party wall by proper foundations at said person's own expense, so that the wall is and remains as safe and useful as the party wall was before the excavation was commenced. During the demolition, the party wall shall be maintained weatherproof and structurally safe by adequate bracing until such time as the permanent structural supports have been provided. 8. Adjoining roofs: Verify that where the demolition of an existing building is being conducted at a greater height, the roof, roof outlets and roof structures of adjoining buildings shall be protected against damage with adequate safeguards by the person doing the work. 9. Removal of debris: Verify that all waste materials be removed in a manner which prevents injury or damage to persons, adjoining properties and public rights-of-way. 10. Grading of lot: Where a structure has been demolished or removed and a demolition permit has not been approved, the vacant lot shall be filled, graded and maintained in conformity to the established elevation of the street grade at curb level nearest to the point of demolition or excavation. Provision shall be made to prevent the accumulation of water or damage to any foundations on the premises or the adjoining property. 11. Retaining walls and partition fences: Verify that the adjoining grade is not higher than the legal level, the person causing an excavation to be made shall erect, where necessary, a retaining wall at his or her expense and on his or her land. Such wall shall be built to a height sufficient to retain the adjoining earth, shall be provided with a guardrail or fence not less than 42 inches (1067 mm) in height. 12. Removal of waste material: Verify that material shall not be dropped by gravity or thrown outside the exterior walls of a building during demolition. Wood or metal chutes shall be provided for the removal of such materials. Where the removal of any material will cause an excessive amount of dust, such material shall be wet down to prevent the creation of a nuisance. 13. Lighting: Verify that all stairways and parts of buildings under demolition shall be adequately lighted while persons are engaged at work. 14. Fire department access:
52
Verify that fire department access shall be provided and maintained to all structures undergoing demolition. Fire department access roadways shall be of an approved surface material capable of providing emergency vehicle access and support at all times, and shall be a minimum of 20 feet in unobstructed width. The access roadways shall provide a minimum turning radius capable of accommodating the largest fire apparatus of the jurisdiction and a minimum vertical clearance of 13 1/2 feet (4115 mm). Appendix 3 – Sample Safeguarding Building Under Construction Checklist Source: The Nebraska State Fire Marshal’s Office
Requirements for Buildings Under Construction
Reference the Life Safety Code and NFPA 241
• Approved means of egress shall be maintained from existing areas of the building during the remodeling, alteration, or addition process. LSC, 4.6.10.1
• Any addition, while under construction shall be separated from existing buildings by one-hour rated construction, or fire sprinkler protection shall be provided throughout the new and existing buildings. 241, 8.6.2
• Any temporary structure constructed of, or containing combustible materials such as a • Construction trailer or storage shed shall be separated from the building under
construction (BUC) by a distance at least equal to the length of the wall of the temporary structure exposed to the BUC. This distance will increase if the length of the exposed wall of the temporary structure exceeds 20 feet. 4.1.1
• Tarps, panels or plastic sheeting used as enclosures in and around the BUC shall be flame resistant or fire retardant. Materials not having an approved certification shall meet NFPA701. 4.2
• All hot work such as cutting, welding, brazing, soldering, grinding, etc. shall be conducted with the approval of the construction manager or his//her designee. All combustibles shall be removed or properly covered, and no flammable vapors may be present prior to the hot work. A fire watch must be posted during the operation and for 60 minutes after. 5.1
• Temporary heaters shall be listed or approved by a major testing laboratory, be in proper working order and be placed a safe distance from combustibles. 5.2
• Rubbish, waste and debris shall be removed at the end of each shift or more frequently as the situation warrants. 5.4
• Storage of more than 60 gallons of Class I and II flammable liquids shall be at least 50 feet from the BUC. 5.5.1.2
• Class I and II liquids shall be stored in approved safety containers. 5.5.2.1 • Heavy-duty cords shall be used for temporary lighting. The insulation shall be maintained
in safe condition. Splices shall have insulation provided equal to the original insulation. 6.1.3
53
• The construction manager or designee shall develop a prefire plan that includes participation and on-site inspections from the local fire department or AHJ. 7.1
• At least one fire extinguisher per floor of the BUC and training on their use shall be provided by the construction manager or designee. 7.7.3, 7.2.4
• Fire protection features and devices shall not be impaired or shut down without first notifying the construction manager or designee. 7.2.4.5
• Any protective covering of sprinkler heads or smoke detectors shall be removed immediately when work in the affected area is completed. 7.2.4.6
• All BUC shall be accessible to firefighting equipment with suitable and unobstructed roads of at least 20 feet in width. The roads shall provide access within 150 feet of all sides of the building. 7.5.5
• All multistory BUC shall include an approved, well lit and unobstructed stair to reach the upper floors. 7.5.6
• Clear access to fire hydrants and fire department connections shall be maintained at all times. 7.5.8
• An approved fire extinguisher shall be placed within a storage shed or other temporary structure that is over 150 square feet in area. 7.7.2
• Fire sprinkler systems shall be in service prior to occupancy. 8.7.3.3 • A 2A20BC fire extinguisher shall be placed on any roof being covered or repaired or
within 20 feet of torch applied roofing equipment. 9.1.4 • A 20B fire extinguisher shall be placed no closer than 5 feet and not more than 25 feet of
a tar kettle. 9.1.4 • Fire walls shall be maintained between new and existing construction as long as possible
during demolition operations. 8.6.1
54
Appendix 4 – Sample pre-fire plan Source: Cambridge Swinnerton, LLC
55
Appendix 5 - Neighboring Jurisdiction’s Organization Chart Source: Cobb County
56
Appendix 6 - NFPA Table 2007-2011 Averages Source: Fires in Residential Properties Under Construction or Undergoing Major Renovation
Other Than One- or Two-Family Homes (NFPA Fire Analysis and Research Division, 2001)
57
Appendix 7 – Survey Instrument
58
59
60
Appendix 8 – SSFR New Construction Inspection Summary from 2009 thru 2014 Source: SSFR’s Mobile Eyes Software September 2014-September 2013 # of Inspections1 Occupant Sq. Ft. 100 Percent 401 9,807,403 50 Percent 83 16,202,447 80 Percent 368 19,681,955 Total 852 45,691,805 September 2013-September 2012 # of Inspections1 Occupant Sq. Ft. 100 Percent 386 5,535,047 50 Percent 28 311,269 80 Percent 300 3,456,808 Total 714 9,303,124 September 2012-September 2011 # of Inspections1 Occupant Sq. Ft. 100 Percent 373 5,226,774 50 Percent 35 1,345,075 80 Percent 364 5,958,426 Total 772 12,530,275 September 2011-September 2010 100 Percent 360 9,069,393 50 Percent 37 2,138,110 80 Percent 240 5,058,384 Total 637 16,265,887 September 2010-September 2009 100 Percent 271 2,030,894 50 Percent 28 838,444 80 Percent 225 1,385,314 Total 524 4,254,652
61
62
Appendix 9 – Active Construction Sites, Excluding Renovation Source: COSS GIS Department
