A COMPARISON OF THE RETROACTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE NFPA LIFE

SAFETY CODE AND THE ICC INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE

COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION

BY: Michael L. Sinsigalli

Assistant Chief
West Hartford Fire Department
West Hartford, Connecticut

An applied research project submitted to the National Fire Academy

as part of the Executive Fire Officer Program
January 2008

0
 CERTIFICATION STATEMENT

I hereby certify that this paper constitutes my own product, that where language of others

is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have

used the language, ideas, expressions, or writings of another.

Signed:_________________________________
Michael L. Sinsigalli

1
 ABSTRACT

The problem was that the State of Connecticut was adopting a new fire safety

code and a comprehensive analysis of the fire codes under consideration for existing

buildings was not conducted. The purpose of the research was to conduct an analysis to

determine which of the two model codes under consideration best addressed the life

safety issues in an existing building.

Evaluative research method was used to identify the common contributing factors

to fire casualties in structural fires, which factors are addressed through code

requirements, and which model code under consideration by the State addresses those

factors in existing buildings.

It was determined that the Life Safety Code published by the National Fire

Protection Association best addressed those factors common to fire casualties in

structural fires regulated by the codes.

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................4

BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE...........................................................................6

LITERATURE REVIEW....................................................................................................9

PROCEDURES.................................................................................................................22

RESULTS..........................................................................................................................23

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... 25

RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................27

REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 29

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure fires in All Properties

Excluding One-and-Two Family Dwellings and Outside or Special Properties……….31

3
 INTRODUCTION

The State of Connecticut (State) has had a state fire safety code since September 29,

1947. This first code was published in progressive installments from it's inception to the final

compilation of requirements published in January of 1956. These codes followed formats

similar to the National Fire Protection (NFPA). Subsequent editions of the Connecticut Fire

Safety Code (CFSC), adopted in 1971 through 1981, followed the NFPA Life Safety Code

(LSC) format but were printed with amendments by the State. The 1981 and subsequent editions

of the CFSC contained provisions for both new and existing buildings. In 1987, the State

adopted the 1985 edition of the LSC and published it's own amendments in an accompanying

supplement. This practice remained consistent until the adoption of the 2005 CFSC which

introduced the 2003 edition of the International Code Council (ICC) International Fire Code

(IFC) for new construction which the State reprinted in a single document.

In 2000, a peer group was formed by the State Department of Public Safety to advance

the adoption of a single family of codes in the State. This group, consisting of representatives of

the Connecticut Chapter of the American Institute of Architects (CAIA), Connecticut Fire

Marshal's Association (CFMA), the Connecticut Building Official's Association (CBOA), State

Fire Marshal's Office and State Building Official's Office called themselves the Coalition for a

Unified Code was given the task of accepting the ICC code series for application throughout the

State. The Coalition reviewed the 2000 editions of the IFC, LSC, ICC International Building

Code (IBC), NFPA Building Construction and Safety Code (NFPA 5000) and the NFPA

National Fire Code (NFPA 1). They determined that the use of the IFC was acceptable for new

construction but that the LSC was the desirable document for application in existing structures.

In their opinion, the IFC did not contain sufficient safeguards for existing structures.

4
 The problem is that a comprehensive analysis of the codes under consideration was not

undertaken and records of the deliberations were not kept. The lack of a comprehensive research

document has left the original questions unanswered and, as a result, the same issues are being

raised during the current code revision cycle.

The purpose of this research project is to provide a comparison of the model codes under

evaluation in the State to determine which best addresses the factors contributing to casualties

common in structural fires in existing structures.

The evaluative research method was used to answer the following questions:

 What is the relationship between code development and fire losses?

 What are the common contributing factors to fire casualties in structural fires?

 Which of those factors are addressed through code requirements?

 Which model code under consideration by the State addresses those factors in existing

buildings?

The research approach utilized was literature review, interviews and analysis of data retrieved

through NFPA and the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS).

While seemingly more appropriate in the Assumptions and Limitations portion of this

paper, it is necessary that the introduction to this research paper carry the following statement

regarding the research findings and discussions. It is not the intent of this researcher or resulting

paper to find fault or to place blame on any individual or entity for the casualties discussed

herein. Research was not conducted into the codes that were legally adopted and in place within

the jurisdictions at the time of the fires. This paper deals only with the factors that were found

to contribute to the casualties and how those factors are addressed within model codes. Model

codes must be legally adopted within a jurisdiction to be applied.

5
 BACKGROUND AND SIGNIFICANCE

Construction codes have been in existence since the code of Hammurabi in 1795 B.C.,

where the first recorded regulation for buildings simply stated that "If a builder build a house for

some one, and does not construct it properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill it's

owner, then that builder shall be put to death" (NFPA 2008). While the Code of Hammurabi is

intended to protect the building occupant, most early code requirements were in written to

protect adjoining properties from damage through building collapse or conflagration. The early

codes reflected the problems of the day. American cities were congested and building materials

were predominately combustible. The threat of conflagration was very real and, in fact, twenty-

two non-warfare conflagrations occurred in the United States from 1740 - 1922 (NFPA 2008). It

was not until a series of fires occurred in the early 1900's that claimed more than 1,000 lives that

a hard look was taken at life safety within a structure and the NFPA formed the Committee on

Safety to Life. The fires that ultimately gave birth to the first Fire Exits Code in 1927 were:

 1903 Iroquois Theater, Chicago, IL., 602 fatalities

 1908 Rhoades Opera House, Boyertown, PA., 170 fatalities

 1908 Lakeview Grammar School, Collinwood OH., 175 fatalities

 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist, New York, NY., 146 fatalities

While each one of these fires was unique in the circumstances of the fire, there were

common factors that contributed to the number of casualties and they brought to light the need

to provide sufficient means of egress in both numbers and capacity and, to maintain those

means of egress throughout the life of a building. Since it's inception, the Building Exits Code

underwent constant revision as additional provisions were brought in. In the 1940's another

series of significant fatal fires raised awareness of other issues necessitating regulation to

further enhance the life safety of those using buildings. In addition to means of egress issues,

6
 factors contributing to the loss of life in these fires included the combustibility of interior finish,

early detection and warning of a fire condition and, the number of people within the building.

These fires became the standards which were used by fire safety professionals to create more

comprehensive codes which addressed those common contributing factors. Those fires

included:

 Coconut Grove Fire, Boston, 492 fatalities

 LaSalle Hotel, Chicago, 61 fatalities

 Canfield Hotel, Dubuque, 19 fatalities

 Winecoff Hotel, Atlanta, 119 fatalities (NFPA 2009)

Since it's inception in 1929, the Building Exits Code has undergone revisions to form a

comprehensive code containing provisions for both new and existing buildings. In 1963, the

Building Exits Code became the Life Safety Code and in 1981, the code requirements for

existing buildings were broken out into separate chapters within the code. The State has adopted

the NFPA format of codes since the first CFSC in 1947.

The ICC was established in 1994 with the goal of developing a single set of coordinated

national; model code dealing with construction. The ICC was formed through a merger of three

prominent code organizations being the Building Officials and Code Administrators

International (BOCA), the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) and the

Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI). These three organizations had, since

the early part of the 20th Century, developed three separate model code sets throughout different

regions in the United States. The State utilized the BOCA Basic Building Code as the parent

building code since it's inception in September, 1971. The first international code series was

published in 2000 and contained the IBC, IFC along with other international codes dealing with

mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems.

7
 The State adopted the International Code (I-Codes) series in December, 2005 after an

arduous adoption process. The Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) require that the State Fire

Marshal and Codes and Standards Committee adopt and administer a Fire Safety Code and that

the code be based on a nationally recognized model code (29-292 CGS). The goal of the State

Fire Marshal and State Building Official, following the philosophy of the newly formed ICC,

was to adopt a single set of codes that would apply to new construction without also requiring

the use of a fire safety code which may contain conflicting provisions.

The Coalition for a Unified Code consisting of representatives of the CAIA, CFMA,

CBOA, State Fire Marshal's Office and State Building Official's Office was formed in 2000 and

given the task of reviewing two of the model code series available at the time. The Coalition

reviewed the 2000 editions of the NFPA Code series which included the NFPA Building

Construction and Safety Code (NFPA 5000) as well as the LSC and the ICC series which

included the IBC and IFC. According to information obtained through interviews of Coalition

members, the NFPA series was not chosen because of the concern that the new NFPA 5000 had

not been adopted in any jurisdictions and was new and untested. The ICC I-Codes were chosen

as the parent document because the IBC and IFC were coordinated and, while the codes were

only in the second editions, the parent codes had been in use for many years throughout the

nation. The Coalition also found that, while the I-Codes were acceptable for new construction,

the IFC lacked sufficient provisions for existing structures. The concern from the fire marshal

community was that the State had drawn a line in the sand with the provisions for existing

buildings within the LSC and they did not want to adopt a code that would reduce that level of

safety. As a result, the ensuing 2005 edition of the CFSC contained selected provisions of the

2003 IFC for new construction and the existing occupancy provisions of the 2003 LSC for

existing occupancies.

8
 Section 29-292 CGS requires that the State review the CFSC every eighteen months

following the adoption date and revise the code as necessary to incorporate advances in

technology and improvements in construction materials. In response to this statute, the State

will begin reviewing the 2009 code series in March, 2009 for adoption.

The results of this applied research project are significant to the State Fire Marshal, State

Codes and Standards Committee, and to the fire marshals throughout the State as it will provide

an analysis of the two codes under consideration to determine which of the model codes best

address those areas of concern in existing buildings which are those factors contributing to fire

casualties.

The applied research project is related to the National Fire Academy’s (NFA) Executive

Development objective to enhance skills needed by the executive fire officer to enhance team

development and ensuring service quality (NFA, 2008).

The research project is also intended to extend the efforts of the United States Fire

Administration in meeting it’s operational objectives to "reduce the loss of life from fire" of

firefighters and those in the targeted age groups through fire safety code application and “to

promote within communities a comprehensive, multi-hazard risk-reduction plan led by the fire

service organization” (NFA, 2008, pII-2).

LITERATURE REVIEW

A literature review was conducted to gather available information regarding fire

casualties and fire codes. This review began at the National Fire Academy‘s Learning Resource

Center in March, 2007. Business reports, fire service trade magazine articles and previous

Executive Fire Officer Applied Research Papers were reviewed for information concerning the

9
common contributing factors in fire casualties. This literature review also included a search of

the Internet using a variety of search options to research factors contributing to fire casualties

and enforcement of fire codes in existing buildings. The literature review was used to answer

the following questions:

 What is the relationship between code development and fire losses?

 What are the common contributing factors to fire casualties in structural fires?

 Which of those factors are addressed through code requirements?

 Which model code under consideration by the State addresses those factors in existing

buildings?

What is the relationship between code development and fire losses in existing buildings?

D. J. Rasbash, in his 2004 text, Evaluation of Fire Safety stated that, "Fire and explosion

disasters and the concern and investigation that follow them probably provide the major input

into requirements for fire safety." (Rasbash 2004). The relationship between significant fire

losses and code development and, the importance of code application in existing buildings was

discussed in the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook. Generally, new building construction in any

given community represents less than 2% of the total number of buildings. While existing

buildings are replaced or renovated as needed, once the building is constructed and the certificate

of occupancy issued, there are few restrictions on the building's continued use. Because of this,

many existing buildings contain risks due to deterioration, deferred maintenance and changes

made to the building without a building permit. Study of multiple fire losses shows that most of

these fires occur in buildings which have existed for some time before the fire. Some national

consensus codes impose requirements on existing buildings and some provisions of these codes

are retroactive whether or not work was being undertaken in the building. (NFPA 2008)

10
 The impact of incidents resulting in significant losses has driven changes to building and

fire regulations since there have been codes. In 1666, the Fire of London brought about early

regulations for zoning and fire resistive construction (ICC 2007). The Triangle Shirtwaist and

Coconut Grove fires brought about emergency egress requirements. Even now, following the

World Trade Center and Hurricane Katrina events, engineering, fire and building professionals

are reviewing the incidents, applicable codes, and new construction methods and materials to

determine if changes need to be made in model consensus codes and standards (NFPA 2008)

In the 2009 edition of the NFPA Life Safety Code Handbook, Paul E. Teague offers that

codes and standards are living documents that are based upon fire experience and the

observations and research of those responsible for them (NFPA 2009). In this supplement to the

Handbook entitled Case Histories: Fire Influencing the Life Safety Code, the Triangle Shirtwaist

Fire, which killed one hundred and forty-six people, was noted as being responsible for the

creation of the first NFPA Committee on Safety to Life which developed the LSC. Foremost

among the many issues brought to light by this fire were the need for adequate and maintained

exits (NFPA 2009).

By the time of the Coconut Grove Fire, thirty-one years after the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire,

the NFPA Building Exits Code existed and, had it been enforced, would have resolved some of

the contributing factors to the four hundred and ninety-two deaths. These factors, which included

overcrowding, insufficient exits and, flammable interior finish, were found to be contributing

factors in the 1972 Beverly Hills Supper Club fire which took 164 lives. Once again, the

Committee on Safety to Life reviewed the provisions of the LSC and proposed changes to

construction and sprinkler requirements for public assembly occupancies (NFPA 2009).

Virtually every factor that contributed to the fatalities in the Coconut Grove Fire and

Beverly Hills Supper Club Fire were present in the Station Night Club on February 20, 2003

11
when a fire erupted involving flammable interior finish on the band stand. This fire spread

rapidly cutting off access to at least one secondary exit in the night club filled with concert

attendees (NIST 2005). Three weeks after the fire the NFPA Technical Committee on Assembly

Occupancies met to discuss the impact of the fire and in July passed Tentative Interim

Amendments to the LSC to prevent future tragedies (NFPA 2009). On September 15, 2008,

twenty-three of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) proposed changes to

the IBC and IFC were adopted and will be included in the 2009 editions of those codes.

Teague offers that fire code development is a continuous process which requires constant

review of past fire experience, construction methods, construction materials and, fire protection

advancements to maintain comprehensive levels of protection. However, once the codes and

standards are developed, they must be adopted by jurisdictions and they must be enforced

(NFPA 2009).

What are the common contributing factors to fire casualties in structural fires?

Review of case histories of those previously mentioned significant fire losses which led

to code improvements showed that all of the fires contained similar factors which contributed to

the casualties. Among these are issues with the means of egress, the number of people within

the facility, interior finish flammability, early detection and warning and, lack of sprinkler

protection (NFPA 2009). Review of the investigation reports or other fire losses shows similar

contributing factors.

NIST completed a comprehensive technical investigation of the Station Night Club Fire

and published their findings in a report of June 2005. The report discusses in detail the

conditions present at the time of the fire as well as a code analysis based upon the 2003 editions

of the IBC and NFPA 5000. The report also makes 10 recommendations of actions to be taken

by model code bodies and jurisdictions. These actions include strengthening requirements for

12
sprinkler systems, strengthening restrictions on foam plastic finish materials, and increasing

safety factors on the means of egress (NIST 2005). The NIST report identified the following

issues pertinent to this research:

 Exposed, non-fire rated foam used as a wall and ceiling finish on the bandstand (NIST

Report 8.2.2)

 The facility was not equipped with a fire sprinkler system (NIST Report 8.2.3)

 The number of occupants at the time of the fire, based upon a tally provided by the

Providence Journal Newspaper was 462 persons (Mooney 2007).

 The main entrance did not have the capacity to accommodate 1/2 of the number of

occupants in attendance (NIST Report, Table 8-3)

 Main Entrance doors were not equipped with panic hardware (NIST Report, Table 8-3)

 Platform exit door did not swing in the direction of exit travel (NIST Report Table 8-3)

 The Providence Journal also reported, in their December, 2007 article entitled Tally of a

Tragedy, that paths to secondary exits were not known to the public in the building and

specifically made comment about one exit sign not being illuminated (Mooney 2007)

The Beverly Hills Supper Club fire took one hundred and sixty-five lives on May 28,

1977. The NFPA Fire Investigation Report identified 7 factors that contributed to the life loss.

The contributing factors to the number of casualties mirrors that of the assembly fires that came

before and those that came after.

 The occupant load for the club, established by the area method was 2375 persons. On the

night of the fire estimates of the crowd ranged from 2400 to 2800 persons.

 Exits were insufficient for the occupant load. The exit capacity was approximately 1650

persons.

13
  Exit access aisles were obstructed. Approximately 1300 people were located in the

Cabaret Room and additional seating and tables reduced the exit access aisles.

 A vertical opening at the curved stair was not enclosed or otherwise protected.

 The interior finish in a main corridor was not rated. Rasbash in his text, Evaluation of

Fire Safety, reported that, based upon research of R.G. Bright in 1977, the flame spread

along the interior finishes of the corridor from the Cabaret Room was between 2 and 5

minutes and was a factor in the large loss of life in that main assembly room (Rasbash

2004).

 The building was not equipped with a fire alarm system.

 The building was not protected with an automatic sprinkler system (Best 1977)

Boston's Coconut Grove Fire is best known among the fire protection community for the

failure of the egress system and the impact of the interior finishes on the fire origin and spread.

However, the lack of vertical opening protection in the stair between the basement Melody

Lounge and the first floor was a major factor in the fire spread. In published reports, the failure

of the egress system was caused by a combination of factors including capacity, arrangement

and, maintenance. While the official seating capacity of the nightclub was stated at being

approximately six hundred persons, unofficial estimates on the night of the fire were one

thousand people. Survivors reported that service staff people were setting up more chairs and

tables to accommodate the additional people. Also reported were exits that were obscured by

decorations, locked exits and improper exits such as a revolving door that trapped two hundred

people (Esposito 2005).

Significant fires leading to code revisions are not limited those in assembly occupancies.

The Our Lady of Angels School fire in Chicago during December, 1958 claimed ninety-three

lives, ninety of the children. While over-crowding was not one of the factors in the number of

14
fatalities, this fire had commonalities with the assembly fires. The entire means of egress system

for this two story school was compromised due to unenclosed exit stairs, non-rated exit access

corridors and combustible interior finishes. The fire, originating at the lowest level of one of the

stairs spread via the combustible finishes and open stairs (Cowan 1996).

While the fires that have resulted in wide sweeping code improvements are nationally

known, fires resulting in casualties occur throughout the country on a daily basis. Analysis of

these fires shows similar factors which are attributed to the casualties. In 1991, a fire in a 3

family dwelling, located in New Britain, Connecticut claimed 10 lives as a rapidly moving fire

cut off the escape of the second and third floor occupants. One of the factors present in this fire

was the lack of properly enclosed exit stairs resulting in the simultaneous loss of both exits

which trapped all occupants above the fire (Incident Investigation Report, CT State Fire

Marshal)

Which of those factors are addressed through code requirements?

Because the codes were developed based upon the contributing factors of past tragedies,

the provisions of model fire codes address those common factors. For example, the provisions

of the 2006 edition of the NFPA Life Safety Code are divided into two main parts. The first

eleven chapters are known as the core chapters. The second part consists of twenty-six chapters

which are known as the occupancy chapters. The occupancy chapters are further divided into

chapters for new construction and those for existing buildings.

The core chapters address those safety features that are common to all occupancies and

are as follows:

1. Administration

2. Referenced Publications

3. Definitions

15
 4. General

5. Performance Based Options

6. Classification of Occupancy and Hazard of Contents

7. Means of Egress

8. Features of Fire Protection

9. Building Service and Fire Protection Equipment

10. Interior Finish, Contents, and Furnishings

11. Special Structures and High Rise

Four of the chapters, Means of Egress, Features of Fire Protection, Building Service and

Fire Protection Equipment, and Interior Finish, Contents and Furnishings, are directly applicable

to those factors common to most fire casualties (NFPA 2006).

Although structured in a different manner, the 2006 edition of the IFC contains similar

chapters dealing with those common factors which include Building Services and Systems, Fire

Resistance Rated Construction, Interior Finish, Fire Protection Systems and, Means of Egress

(ICC 2006) The individual chapters of both codes are further divided into sub-sections dealing

with the particular features. For example, the Means of Egress Chapter of the 2006 Life Safety

Code is subdivided into twelve sections dealing with capacity of the means of egress,

components, arrangement, markings and illumination (NFPA 2006).

Which model code under consideration by the State addresses those factors in existing

buildings?

While both the LSC and IFC contain provisions that address common factors leading to

casualties in fire incidents. What differs is the manner in which the particular model code

addresses existing occupancies. For example, the LSC applies to new construction as well as to

16
existing buildings (NFPA 2006) Any code variations for existing buildings are found within

those chapters dedicated to the existing occupancies. As an example, Section 12.3.5.1 requires

sprinkler protection in new assembly occupancies as follows:

1. Bars with live entertainment

2. Dance Halls

3. Discotheques

4. Nightclubs

5. Assembly occupancies with festival seating

Section 12.3.5.2 also requires sprinkler protection in any new assembly occupancy with an

occupant load greater than three hundred persons. The are exemptions for new assembly

occupancies that are large multi-purpose rooms that are less than twelve thousand square feet,

gymnasiums, skating rinks, and swimming pools with no audience viewing for more than three

hundred persons. For existing occupancies, Section 13.3.5.1 requires sprinkler protection in bars

with live entertainment, dance halls, discotheques, night clubs, and assembly occupancies with

festival seating only where the occupant load exceeds one hundred persons.

The 2006 edition of the IFC (ICC 2006) provides for existing buildings in a different

manner. Section 102.1 applies to existing structures under three conditions. The first condition

is where the structure, facility or conditions did not legally exit at the time of adoption of the

code. The intended application of this section, according to the ICC IFC commentary, is to apply

to existing structures that did not have a certificate of occupancy at the time that the code was

adopted such as a building that was built prior to a construction code existing in the jurisdiction

(ICC 2003). The second condition is where the specific sections of the code states that the

section applies to existing structures. One example of this type of application is found in Section

17
1027.1 that states "Means of egress in existing buildings shall comply with Sections 1003

through 1026 except as amended in Section 1027.

Section 1027 modifies some of the means of egress provisions to accommodate

conditions typically found in existing buildings. For example, Section 1027.7 allows for a

minimum door width of twenty-eight inches for an existing door where Section 1008.1.1

requires a minimum door width of thirty-two inches for new construction. Other modifications

include stair width and some increases for common path of travel and dead end corridor lengths.

The third condition is where the fire code official finds that the conditions in the existing

structure constitute a distinct hazard to life or property. Guidance for application of this section

offered within the IFC Commentary (ICC 2003) requires that the fire code official determine

that a "distinct hazard to life or property exists prior to retroactively enforcing the code". The

commentary further states that "simply claiming a violation exists because a building does not

comply with the most recent edition of the code" is not sufficient in establishing the hazard.

Based upon the analysis of the fire losses, the following code requirements address the

common factors in multiple casualty fires:

Occupant Load. The number of occupants in the building exceeded the calculated

occupant load in all of the significant assembly occupancy fires studied as part of this research.

Section 12.1.7 of the LSC (NFPA 2006 ) and Section 1004.1 of the IFC (ICC 2006) control the

occupant load of a space by applying a factor to the area available for that space. The factors

used by both codes are identical and include 7 square feet per person for condensed seating and

fifteen square feet per person for seating at tables and chairs. Both codes permit the fire code

official to allow increases provided that the means of egress has sufficient capacity for the

number of people using the building.

18
 Egress Capacity. The capacity of the egress system was not sufficient to accommodate

the number of persons within the occupancy at the time of the fire. The inability of the means

of egress to handle all of the occupants is listed as on of the direct contributors to the loss of life

in The Station fire. In addition to using the same capacity factors, the LSC (NFPA 2006) and

IFC (ICC 2006) require that the main entrance/exit be sized to accommodate one-half of the

occupant load. However, the IFC requires that only when the occupant load is greater than

three-hundred persons.

Protection of the Means of Egress. Exits and exit access that were not enclosed in fire

rated construction were reported as contributing factors in several of the multi-story fires such as

the Our Lady of Angels School and Irwin Place. Both codes contain provisions for enclosure but

with different thresholds. Section 7.2.2.5.1.1 of the LSC (NFPA 2006) requires that all inside

stairs used as an exit or exit component, be enclosed in fire rated construction the rating of which

is determined by the building height. The exit enclosure provisions can be modified by the

occupancy provisions. For example, exit stairway enclosure is not required in an existing school

where the stair connects only two stories while the provisions for existing apartment building

require all egress stairs to be enclosed. Corridors in existing educational occupancies are

required to be fire rated for thirty minutes unless the building is sprinkler protected or each

classroom has a direct exit to the exterior of the building.

Table 1 2006 LSC Ratings for Means of Egress in Selected Existing Occupancies

Occupancy Exits Exit Access

Assembly 1 or 2 hour N.R.
1
Educational 1 or 2 hour 1/2 hour2
Hotels, Dormitories 1 or 2 hour 1/2 hour2
Apartment 1 or 2 hour 1/2 hour
Mercantile 1 or 2 hour3 N.R.
1. 2.
Business 1 or 2 hour N.R.

19
1
2 story unenclosed stair permitted.
2
Rating not required with sprinkler protection
3
2 story unenclosed opening permitted in Class A & B mercantile with sprinkler protection.
N.R. No Requirement

Section 1020.1 of the 2006 IFC (ICC 2006) will permit 50% of the exits stairs to be

unenclosed when serving only 1 adjacent floor level and there are at least 2 means of egress are

provided from both floors. A second exception does not limit the number of unenclosed egress

stairs when the building is sprinkler protected. Corridors in existing buildings under the IFC

(ICC 2006) are required only to resist the passage of smoke.

Door Swing. Door swing is an important issue in assembly occupancies where large

numbers of people are present. Doors that do not swing in the direction of exit travel can

become held shut by the force of the people attempting to exit. In a 2005 book about the

Coconut Grove fire entitled Fire in the Grove (Esposito 2005), Lieutenant Myles Murphy of the

Boston Fire Department reported that more than thirty bodies were piled against an in-swinging

exit door. Exit doors that did not swing in the direction of exit travel were also listed as

contributing factors in Beverly Hills Supper Club fire and mention of a door not swinging in the

direction of exit travel was made in the report of The Station fire.

The LSC (NFPA2006) requires egress doors to swing in the direction of exit travel when

the door enters into an exit enclosure or serves a high hazard occupancy or where the egress door

serves an area with an occupant load of fifty or more persons. The IFC (ICC 2006) contains the

same provisions.

Exit Obstructions. Exit paths and exit doors that are obstructed or locked were cited as

contributing factors in each of the assembly occupancies studied. In the Coconut Grove, Deputy

Chief McDonough of the Boston Fire Department reported multiple bodies found at a locked

exit door on the Piedmont Street side of the building (Esposito, 2005). Several sections of the

20
LSC (NFPA 2006) apply to obstructed exits. Section 7.1.10 requires that the means of egress be

maintained free of all obstructions and impediments to full and instant use in case of fire or

emergency. Section 7.1.9 prohibits the installation of any device on any component of the

means of egress that would prohibit or impede it's instant use. Section 1028 of the IFC (ICC

2006)contains similar provisions.

Interior Finish. Flammable interior finishes and decorations were listed as major

contributors to fire casualties in all of the assembly fires studied. In the Coconut Grove and

Station fires, flammable interior finish as listed as a contributor to the fire ignition as well as to

the rapid flame spread and smoke density. In all occupancies, the interior finish within the

means of egress is regulated and must be rated either Class A or B (NFPA 2006). Section 803 of

the IFC (ICC 2006) contains similar provisions for the interior finishes within existing buildings.

Vertical Opening Protection. Protection of vertical openings is important to control the

spread of fire and smoke between floors. Generally, the LSC (NFPA 2006) requires that vertical

openings be protected by rated construction or the building be sprinkler protected. The IFC

(ICC 2006) permits 2 story unprotected vertical openings in all occupancies except institutional.

Fire Alarm System. The IFC (ICC 2006) retroactive requirements are limited to

educational occupancies, institutional occupancies, hotels, rooming and lodging houses,

apartments, and residential care facilities. The LSC (NFPA 2006) contains fire alarm

requirements is all occupancy classifications based upon certain thresholds. For example, a fire

alarm system is required in an existing assembly occupancy where the occupant load exceeds

three hundred persons.

Sprinkler System. The lack of sprinkler protection was listed as a contributing factor in

several of the large life loss fires including the Station Night Club. (NIST 2005) The IFC (ICC

2006) does not contain requirements for retroactively sprinkler protecting existing structures

21
unless some change occurs in the building, such as an occupancy change or addition that would

invoke a sprinkler requirement. The LSC (NFPA 2006) requires sprinkler protection in certain

existing buildings such as places of assembly that are used as nightclubs, dance halls or have live

entertainment when the occupant loads exceed 100 persons.

PROCEDURES

A typical feedback instrument was not used in this project because a national reporting

system is already in place and the pertinent data sought after could be obtained from a single

source. Information on fire loss is gathered throughout the United States through a system called

the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and submitted to the National Fire

Information Council (NFIC). While these statistics are gathered from fire departments across

the nation, unfortunately the data is not retrievable by other than a few selected agencies. The

national data sought after for this project could not be retrieved directly from NFIC. As a result,

the NFPA was contacted for assistance.

A set of questions was developed to determine the extent of the fire casualty problem in

structures other than 1 and 2 family dwellings and to determine if a correlation exists between

the casualties and factors that could be addressed through fire code provisions. Review of the

data fields on the NFIRS fire and casualty report forms showed that sufficient information was

being collected and available. Questions were submitted to NFPA who produced a report

entitled Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties Excluding 1 and 2

Family Dwellings and Outside or Special Properties based upon data retrieved from the NFIRS

data base. A complete report is included in the Appendix Section.

22
 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

All data within the NFIC data base is retrieved through NFIRS fire reporting by the

nation's fire service. The data is submitted either by hard copy or computer files using a

standard format of coding found in the NFIRS Manual. It is assumed that all reporting

departments are using this standardized format and that the data is being checked for quality

before being submitted. It is also assumed that all reportable incidents were reported by the

agency.

The inability to retrieve data directly from NFIC narrowed the scope of the research

because actual reports could not be retrieved to view narrations that may have assisted in

developing conclusions.

The statistics used in the NFPA report are national estimates that were derived from the

United States Fire Administration (USFA) NFIRS and NFPA annual fire department experience

survey and cover the period from 2003 - 2006. Further assumptions and limitations of the NFPA

report can are found within the appendix of the report which is included in this paper.

Data was only used for fires that did not occur within 1 and 2 family dwellings or outside

properties. 1 and 2 family dwellings are not inspected by the local fire marshal in Connecticut.

Therefore data from those occupancies as well as outside fires, while important to overall fire

statistics, was not a consideration for issues that could addressed through code enforcement.

RESULTS

Research question 1: How many fire casualties occur in structure fires other than in 1 and 2

family dwellings?

Within the report period of 2003 - 2006, eight hundred and fifty deaths and six thousand

and eight hundred seventy injuries were reported.

23
Research Question 2: How many casualties were intimately involved with the origin of the fire?

Five hundred and twenty civilian fire deaths were reported as being in the area of fire

origin during the time of the fire. Of these fatalities, approximately 67% were reported as being

involved with the fire in some manner. Fire injuries mirror the fatalities with 67% being within

the area of fire origin during the fire and 57% being involved in the fire origin in some manner.

Research Question 3: How many casualties occurred as a result of egress problems?

Sixty-four percent of civilian fire deaths and thirty percent of civilian fire injuries

resulted from fire pattern contributing to the injury. Incidents included are where the exits are

blocked by fire products or where the victim was trapped above the fire. Egress issues were

listed as contributing factors in twelve percent of the fire deaths and 7% of the injuries.

Research Question 4: How many fire casualties occurred in fires where code compliance might

have prevented a contributing factor from starting the ignition?

Ten percent of fire deaths and 11% of the casualties were involved where electrical

failure or malfunction was a contributing factor in the fire origin. In 4% of fire deaths and 2% of

injuries, fire spread or control was listed as a contributing factor to the casualty. In 1% of the

deaths and 1% of the casualties, design, manufacturing or installation deficiencies were listed as

a factor. Four percent of the deaths and 6% of injuries listed mechanical failure or malfunction

as a contributing factor. An estimated 19% of the civilian fire deaths and 19% of civilian

injuries occurred where code compliance was thought to have been able to prevent the casualty.

24
 DISCUSSION

The topic of this research paper was to determine which of the two model codes under

evaluation by the State of Connecticut, the NFPA Life Safety Code or the ICC International Fire

Code, better address life safety in existing buildings. The need for comprehensive code

application in existing buildings was identified as a need based upon the history of major fire

losses and an analysis of the factors common to the casualties in those fires. These factors

included overcrowding of assembly occupancies, issues with the means of egress, vertical

opening protection, lack of early warning, lack of fire sprinklers, and combustible and

flammable interior finish. Issues with the means of egress could be divided into two sub-groups,

those involving maintenance and those involving construction. Maintenance issues included

locked or obstructed exits. Construction type issues involved insufficient egress capacity, lack

of protection, and door swing against exit travel.

Evaluation of the two model codes under consideration by the State indicated that both

the LSC and IFC contain provisions that address these issues. What differs is the extent to

which the requirements are applied to existing buildings. The LSC contains provisions for new

and existing buildings. Existing buildings are provided for in separate chapters for each of the

different occupancy types. The chapters for the existing occupancies provide exceptions which

are less restrictive than the requirements for new construction. The provisions of the LSC apply

to all buildings with no blanket grandfather clause that would exempt a building from meeting

either the requirements for new or existing. The lack of a grandfather's clause does not appeal to

industry organizations such as the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) who

seek less stringent requirements for existing buildings.

The IFC applies to existing buildings to a much greater extent anticipated by this author.

Section 102.1 of the 2006 edition clearly brings existing buildings within the reach of the code.

25
Subsection 2 applies to structures, facilities and conditions that were not legally in existence at

the time of the code adoption. The intended application of this section is to include buildings

that were built prior to the jurisdiction having a code. While it has been argued that this section

is intended to negate the application of the code if a certificate of occupancy has been granted

even if violations existed, weight must be given to the operative phrase, legally in existence. A

certificate of occupancy indicates that the building is in compliance with the applicable codes

and, while the certificate of occupancy may have been granted to allow legal occupancy, the

condition that is in violation of the code remains an issue and must be resolved. Several sections

of the code contain verbiage that specifically applies to existing buildings. Where this occurs,

Subsection 3 applies the code regardless of the time of the occupancy. The final subsection

applies the IFC where the fire code official determines that conditions constitute a distinct

hazard to life and property.

The provisions of each code where evaluated to determine where differences in

application occur. Both codes addressed the means of egress in existing buildings in similar

manners. Occupant load factors and exit capacity factors were the same and applied in the same

manner. Provisions for the exit components were similar and both codes held strong to the fact

the exit capacity must be sufficient for the occupant load of the space. The differences in the

codes were found to center around fire protection features such as vertical opening protection,

fire alarms and sprinkler systems.

The IFC contained no retroactive provisions for the installation of sprinkler systems

where the LSC contained provisions in several occupancies, including certain assembly spaces.

In those occupancies requiring protection, the threshold limits requiring protection were greater

than those for new construction. The IFC contains requirements for fire alarm systems to be

installed retroactively in Education, Institutional, Hotels, rooming houses, apartment buildings

26
with more than 16 units and residential care facilities. The LSC contained fire alarm

requirements in most occupancies, including public assembly.

Another area where the codes differ is with the protection of vertical openings. The IFC

will permit two story openings without protection in all occupancies other than Group I. The

LSC requires some form of protection of all vertical openings.

While the two codes are similar in their requirements, the differences in key areas such as

vertical opening protection, fire alarms and sprinklers and the manner in which the LSC

addresses these areas, makes the LSC a better choice for the State at this time.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The debate over which model code and which model code agency is one that is sure to

occur during every code revision cycle in the State. However, based solely on the comparison of

the code requirements to those issues noted as contributing factors to fire casualties in the

studied events, the LSC was found to address those issues in a more comprehensive manner. For

that reason, it is recommended that the State continue to use the LSC as the fire safety code for

existing buildings.

In conducting research for this paper, it was found to be impossible to obtain the data

from NFIRS reports directly from NFIC. It is imperative that this data, collected from the

nation's fire service, be retrievable by the service for research. It is recommended that that data

be available through the United States Fire Administration with research tools to perform such

inquiries.

The research for this paper entailed reading through numerous reports and accounts of

significant fire casualties. Reviewing these accounts reinforced the value of the fire codes. The

27
study of these tragedies should be made a part of training programs for those involved in code

enforcement and code development.

28
 REFERENCE LIST

Cowan, D. & Kuenster, J. (1996) To Sleep With The Angels. Chicago, IL: Elephant

Esposito, J.C. (2005) Fire in the Grove. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo

International Code Council (2007) Building Department Administration. Country Club Hills, IL:

Author

International Code Council (2006) International Fire Code. Country Club Hills, IL: Author

International Code Council (2003) International Fire Code Commentary. Country Club Hills,

IL: Author

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2005) Report of the Technical Investigation of

The Station Nightclub Fire. Washington, DC: U.S.: Government Printing Office

National Fire Academy. (2008) Executive fire officer program, operational policies and

procedures applied research guidelines. Emmitsburg, MD: Author

National Fire Protection Association. (2008) Fire Protection Handbook. Quincy, MA: Author

National Fire Protection Association. (2003) Life Safety Code Handbook. Quincy, MA: Author

National Fire Protection Association. (2009) Life Safety Code Handbook. Quincy, MA: Author

National Fire Protection Association. (2006) Life Safety Code. Quincy, MA: Author

Rasbash, D.J., Ramachandran, G., Kandola, B., Watts, J.M., & Law, M. (2004) Evaluation of

Fire Safety. West Sussex, England: Wiley

State of Connecticut (2006) Connecticut General Statutes. Hartford, CT: Author

State of Connecticut (2005) The Connecticut fire safety code. Hartford, CT: Author

Mooney, T. (2007) Tally of a Tragedy. Providence, RI: Providence Journal

Von Drehle, D. (2003) Triangle, The Fire That Changed America, New York, NY: Atlantic

Monthly Press

29
30
Appendix A

CIVILIAN DEATHS AND INJURIES IN STRUCTURE FIRES IN ALL PROPERTIES,

EXCLUDING ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OUTSIDE OR SPECIAL
PROPERTY

Jennifer D. Flynn
Fire Analysis and Research Division
National Fire Protection Association

December 2008

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471

www.nfpa.org

31
Acknowledgements

The National Fire Protection Association thanks all the fire departments and state fire authorities who
participate in the National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the annual NFPA fire
experience survey. These firefighters are the original sources of the detailed data that make this analysis
possible. Their contributions allow us to estimate the size of the fire problem.

We are also grateful to the U.S. Fire Administration for its work in developing, coordinating, and
maintaining NFIRS.

For more information about the National Fire Protection Association, visit www.nfpa.org or call 617-770-
3000. To learn more about the One-Stop Data Shop go to www.nfpa.org/osds or call 617-984-7443. Copies
of this analysis are available from:

National Fire Protection Association

One-Stop Data Shop 1
Batterymarch Park Quincy,
MA 02169-7471
www.nfpa.org
e-mail: [email protected]
phone: 617-984-7443

NFPA Index No. 1403

Copyright © 2008, National Fire Protection Association, Quincy, MA
This custom analysis is prepared by and copyright is held by the National Fire Protection Association. Notwithstanding the custom
nature of this analysis, the NFPA retains all rights to utilize all or any part of this analysis, including any information, text, charts,
tables or diagrams developed or produced as part hereof in any manner whatsoever as it deems appropriate, including but not
limited to the further commercial dissemination hereof by any means or media to any party.

32
 CIVILIAN DEATHS AND INJURIES IN STRUCTURE FIRES IN ALL PROPERTIES,
EXCLUDING ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND OUTSIDE OR SPECIAL
PROPERTIES

An estimated 850 civilian fire deaths and 6,870 civilian fire injuries were reported to
municipal fire departments annually in 2003-2006, in structure fires in all properties,
excluding one- and two-family dwellings and outside or special property.

This analysis provides national estimates on U.S. civilian fire deaths and injuries in structure
fires that occurred in all properties, excluding one- and two-family dwellings and outside or
special property, during 2003-2006.

The statistics in this analysis are national estimates derived from Version 5.0 of the U.S. Fire
Administration’s (USFA’s) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and NFPA’s
annual fire department experience survey. Details on the methodology used can be found in the
Appendix. These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so
exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. Casualty and
loss projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious
fire. Civilian deaths and injuries are rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not equal sums due to
rounding.

In 60% of civilian fire deaths in these properties, the victim was in the area of origin during
the time of the fire.
Of the 520 civilian fire deaths in which the victim was in the area of origin during the time of the
fire, 67% were involved with the fire in some way. Civilian fire injuries appear to mimic the
civilian fire deaths. In 67% of civilian fire injuries, the victim was in the area of origin during the
time of the fire. Of these injuries, 57% of victims were also involved with the fire. (See Table 1.)
The majority of civilian deaths and injuries occurred when the victim was in the area of origin of
the fire. (See Table 2.)

Misuse of material or product was the leading factor contributing to ignition for civilian
deaths and injuries.
Figure 1 shows that more than half of the civilian fire deaths (63%) and injuries (52%) occurred
in fires where the factor contributing to ignition was the misuse of material or product. Of the
deaths from fires in which misuse of material or product fires was the factor contributing to
ignition, 31% resulted from materials or products being abandoned or discarded and 30% were
due to a heat source being too close to combustibles. Table 3 provides information about specific
factors contributing to ignition.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 1 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
33
 Figure 1. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-Family
Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Leading Factors Contributing to Ignition,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

Sixteen percent of civilian deaths occurred in fires where an operational deficiency contributed to
the ignition of the fire. Of the 140 deaths and 1,820 injuries in which operational deficiency was a
factor, 57% of the deaths and 60% of civilian injuries were due to fires started by unattended
equipment. The factors that makeup operational deficiency and misuse of material or product-
abandoned materials, playing with heat source, or unattended equipment- all involve human error,
code compliance alone will not prevent most of these casualties. (See Table 3)

It appears that up to 19% of the civilian deaths and 19% of civilian injuries occurred in
fires where code compliance might have prevented a contributing factor from starting the
ignition.
Ten percent of civilian fire deaths and 11% of civilian fire injuries occurred in these properties
when electrical failure or malfunction was the factor that contributed to the ignition of the fire.
Four percent of civilian deaths and 2% of civilian injuries occurred when fire spread or control
was a factor, 4% of deaths and 6% of injuries occurred when mechanical failure or malfunction
was a factor, and 1% of deaths and 1% of injuries occurred when design, manufacturing, or
installation was deficient. (See Table 3)

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 2 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
34
 Figure 2. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-Family
Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Factors Contributing to Injury,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

0 Civilian Deaths

OCivillian Injuries

12%

Twelve percent of civilian deaths and 7% of civilian injuries occurred as a result of egress
problems.
Sixty-four percent of civilian deaths and 30% of civilian injuries were a result of fire pattern
contributing to injury. Fire pattern includes incidents where exits were blocked by flame or
smoke, vision was blocked, or the victim was trapped above the fire. In 18% of civilian deaths
and 20% of civilian injuries, issues with escape contributed to the injury; for example clothing
caught fire, an inappropriate exit route was used by the victim, or the victim re-entered the
building. Egress problems contributed to 12% of civilian deaths and 7% of civilian fire injuries in
these properties. (See Table 4)

Being asleep was the leading human factor in structure fires in these properties, when a
human factor contributed to the fire or injury.
When a human factor was reported to contribute to ignition, the leading factor was that the victim
was asleep when the fire started. In 14% of civilian deaths, possible impairment by alcohol or drugs
was cited as a contributing factor to the fire. (See Table 5) Being asleep was the leading human
factor contributing to injury in civilian deaths and injuries in these properties. Possibly being
impaired by alcohol was the second leading human factor contributing to injury in civilian deaths in
these properties. (See Table 6)

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 3 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
35
 Table 1. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Location at Time of Incident, 2003-2006 Annual
Averages

Civilian Civilian
Location at Time of Incident Deaths Injuries

In area of origin and not involved 170 (20%) 1,940 (28%)

Not in area of origin and not involved 120 (14%) 1,040 (15%)
Not in area of origin but involved 220 (26%) 1,330 (19%)
In area of origin and involved 350 (41%) 2,520 (37%)
Unclassified location 0 (0%) 50 (1%)

Total 850 (100%) 6,870 (100%

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported
only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. Casualty projections can be heavily influenced by the
inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Civilian deaths and injuries are rounded to the nearest tenth.
Sums may not equal totals due to rounding.

Source: NFIRS Version 5.0 and NFPA survey.

Table 2. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by General Location at Time of Injury,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

Civilian Civilian
General Location at Time of Injury Deaths Injuries

In area of origin 530 (62%) 4,640 (68%)

In building, but not in area of origin 320 (38%) 1,890 (27%)
Outside, not in area of origin 10 (1%) 340 (5%)

Total 850 (100%) 6,870 (100%

Note: These are national estimates of fires reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported
only to Federal or state agencies or industrial fire brigades. Casualty projections can be heavily influenced by the
inclusion or exclusion of one unusually serious fire. Since more than one factor can be recorded for each victim we
cannot add percentages. Civilian deaths and injuries are rounded to the nearest tenth. Sums may not equal totals due to
rounding.

Source: NFIRS Version 5.0 and NFPA survey.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 4 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
36
 Table 3. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Factors Contributing to Ignition,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

Civilian Civilian
Factors Contributing to Ignition Deaths Injuries

Misuse of material or product 540 (63%) 3,610 (52%

Abandoned or discarded materials or products 170 (19%) 890 (13%)
Heat source too close to combustibles 160 (19%) 1,030 (15%)
Unclassified misuse of material or product 90 (11%) 760 (11%)
Playing with heat source 70 (8%) 400 (6%)
Flammable liquid or gas spilled 20 (3%) 200 (3%)
Cutting, welding too close to combustible 20 (2%) 160 (2%)
Flammable liquid used to kindle fire 10 (1%) 40 (1%)

Operational deficiency 140 (16%) 1,820 (26%

Equipment unattended 80 (10%) 1,100 (16%)
Accidentally turned on, not turned off 20 (2%) 180 (3%)
Unclassified operational deficiency 10 (1%) 160 (2%)
Equipment used for not intended purpose 10 (1%) 30 (0%)
Equipment not being operated properly 10 (1%) 110 (2%)

Electrical failure or malfunction 90 (10%) 730 (11%

Unclassified electrical failure or malfunction 30 (4%) 270 (4%)
Unspecified short-circuit arc 20 (3%) 270 (4%)
Short circuit arc from defective, worn insulation 10 (2%) 60 (1%)
Short circuit arc from mechanical damage 10 (1%) 30 (0%)

Fire spread or control 30 (4%) 120 (2%)

Exposure fire 10 (1%) 50 (1%)
Outside or open fire for debris or waste disposal 10 (1%) 40 (1%)
Outside or open fire for warming or cooking 10 (1%) 0 (0%)
Unclassified fire spread or control 10 (1%) 30 (0%)

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 5 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
37
 Table 3. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Factors Contributing to Ignition,
2003-2006 Annual Averages
(Continued)

Civilian Civilian
Factors Contributing to Ignition Deaths Injuries

Mechanical failure, malfunction 30 (4%) 440 (6%)

Leak or break 20 (2%) 140 (2%)
Unclassified mechanical failure or malfunction 10 (1%) 210 (3%)

Design, manufacturing, installation deficiency 10 (1%) 50 (1%)

Installation deficiency 10 (1%) 20 (0%)

Natural condition 0 (0%) 50 (1%)

Other factors contributing to ignition 70 (8%) 450 (7%)

Total factor entries 910 (106%) 7,260 (106%

Total deaths and injuries 850 (100%) 6,870 (100%)

Note: Multiple entries are allowed, resulting in more entries than casualties. These are national estimates of fires
reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or
industrial fire brigades. Casualty projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of one
unusually serious fire. Only factors whose percentages equal at least 1% are shown on this table. Civilian deaths
and injuries are rounded to the nearest tenth. Sums may not equal totals due to rounding.

Source: NFIRS Version 5.0 and NFPA survey.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 6 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
38
 Table 4. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Factors Contributing to Injury,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

Factors Contributing to Injury Civilian Deaths Civilian Injuries

Fire pattern 430 (64%) 1,170 (30%

Exits blocked by flame 190 (28%) 450 (11%)
Exits blocked by smoke 80 (13%) 180 (5%)
Unclassified fire pattern 60 (9%) 320 (8%)
Vision blocked or impaired by smoke 60 (9%) 160 (4%)
Trapped above fire 40 (6%) 70 (2%)

Escape 120 (18%) 780 (20%

Clothing caught fire while escaping 40 (5%) 70 (2%)
Unclassified escape 30 (5%) 310 (8%)
Chose inappropriate exit route 20 (3%) 50 (1%)
Re-entered building 10 (2%) 300 (8%)
Excessive travel distance to nearest clear exit 10 (2%) 30 (1%)
Unfamiliar with exits 10 (1%) 20 (1%)

Egress problem 80 (12%) 290 (7%)

Unclassified egress problem 50 (8%) 190 (5%)
Locked exit or other problem with exit 10 (2%) 40 (1%)
Crowd situation, limited exits 10 (1%) 20 (1%)
Mechanical obstacles to exit 0 (1%) 10 (0%)

Equipment-related factors 30 (4%) 530 (14%

Improper use of cooking equipment 10 (2%) 390 (10%)
Unclassified equipment related factors 10 (1%) 100 (3%)
Improper use of heating equipment 10 (1%) 40 (1%)

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 7 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
39
 Table 4. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Factors Contributing to Injury,
2003-2006 Annual Averages
(Continued)
Factor Contributing to Injury Civilian Deaths Civilian Injuries

Collapse 10 (2%) 10 (0%)

Roof collapse 10 (1%) 0 (0%)
Floor collapse 0 (1%) 0 (0%)
0 0
Vehicle-related factors 0 (1%) 20 (0%)

Other special factors 200 (30%) 1,430 (36%)

Unclassified factor contributed to
injury 150 (22%) 1,190 (30%)
Clothing burned, not while escaping 50 (7%) 120 (3%)

No factor contributed 190 (7%) 2,950 (3%)

Total factor entries 1,050 (129%) 7,170 (107%

Total 850 (100%) 6,870 (100%

Note: Multiple entries are allowed, resulting in more entries than casualties. These are national estimates of fires
reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or
industrial fire brigades. Casualty projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of one
unusually serious fire. Only factors whose percentages equal at least 1% are shown on this table. Civilian deaths
and injuries are rounded to the nearest tenth. Sums may not equal totals due to rounding.

Source: NFIRS Version 5.0 and NFPA survey.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 8 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
40
 Table 5. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Human Factors Contributing to Ignition,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

Civilian Civilian
Human Factors Contributing to Ignition Deaths Injuries

Asleep 170 (20%) 820 (12%)

Possibly impaired by alcohol or drugs 120 (14%) 420 (6%)
Age was a factor 60 (7%) 400 (6%)
Unattended or unsupervised person 50 (6%) 680 (10%)
Physically disabled 40 (5%) 130 (2%)
Possibly mentally disabled 30 (3%) 160 (2%)
Multiple persons involved 20 (2%) 120 (2%)
No human factor involved 470 (55%) 4,510 (66%)

Total factor entries 950 (112%) 7,240 (105%

Total deaths and injuries 850 (100%) 6,870 (100%

Note: Multiple entries are allowed, resulting in more entries than casualties. These are national estimates of fires
reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or
industrial fire brigades. Casualty projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of one
unusually serious fire. Since more than one factor can be recorded for each victim we cannot add percentages.
Civilian deaths and injuries are rounded to the nearest tenth. Sums may not equal totals due to rounding.

Source: NFIRS Version 5.0 and NFPA survey.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 9 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
41
 Table 6. U.S. Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Structure Fires in All Properties, Excluding One- and Two-
Family Dwellings or Outside and Special Property, by Human Factors Contributing to Injury,
2003-2006 Annual Averages

Civilian Civilian
Human Factors Contributing to Injury Deaths Injuries

Asleep 310 (37%) 1,370 (20%)

No human factor 310 (36%) 4,560 (66%)
Possibly impaired by alcohol 120 (14%) 420 (6%)
Physically disabled 80 (9%) 210 (3%)
Possibly impaired by other drug or
chemical 60 (7%) 200 (3%)
Unattended or unsupervised person 50 (6%) 280 (4%)
Possibly mentally disabled 40 (5%) 180 (3%)
Unconscious 30 (4%) 50 (1%)
Physically restrained 0 (1%) 10 (0%)

Total factor entries 1020 (120%) 7,280 (106%

Total deaths and injuries 850 (100%) 6,870 (100%

Note: Multiple entries are allowed, resulting in more entries than casualties. These are national estimates of fires
reported to U.S. municipal fire departments and so exclude fires reported only to Federal or state agencies or
industrial fire brigades. Casualty projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or exclusion of one
unusually serious fire. Civilian deaths and injuries are rounded to the nearest tenth. Sums may not equal totals due to
rounding.

Source: NFIRS Version 5.0 and NFPA survey.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 10 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
42
 Appendix A.
How National Estimates Statistics Are Calculated

The statistics in this analysis are estimates derived from the U.S. Fire Administration's
(USFA’s) National Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) and the National Fire
Protection Association's (NFPA’s) annual survey of U.S. fire departments. NFIRS is a
voluntary system by which participating fire departments report detailed factors about the
fires to which they respond. Roughly two-thirds of U.S. fire departments participate,
although not all of these departments provide data every year. Fires reported to federal or
state fire departments or industrial fire brigades are not included in these estimates.

NFIRS provides the most detailed incident information of any national database not limited
to large fires. NFIRS is the only database capable of addressing national patterns for fires of
all sizes by specific property use and specific fire cause. NFIRS also captures information on
the extent of flame spread, and automatic detection and suppression equipment. For more
information about NFIRS visit http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/. Copies of the paper forms may be
downloaded from
http://www.nfirs.fema.gov/documentation/design/NFIRS_Paper_Forms_2008.pdf.

NFIRS has a wide variety of data elements and code choices. The NFIRS database
contains coded information. Many code choices describe several conditions. These cannot
be broken down further. For example, area of origin code 83 captures fires starting in
vehicle engine areas, running gear areas or wheel areas. It is impossible to tell the portion
of each from the coded data.

Methodology may change slightly from year to year.

NFPA is continually examining its methodology to provide the best possible answers to
specific questions, methodological and definitional changes can occur. Earlier editions of
the same report may have used different methodologies to produce the same analysis,
meaning that the estimates are not directly comparable from year to year.

NFPA’s fire department experience survey provides estimates of the big picture.
Each year, NFPA conducts an annual survey of fire departments which enables us to
capture a summary of fire department experience on a larger scale. Surveys are sent to all
municipal departments protecting populations of 50,000 or more and a random sample,
stratified by community size, of the smaller departments. Typically, a total of roughly
3,000 surveys are returned, representing about one of every ten U.S. municipal fire
departments and about one third of the U.S. population.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 11 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
43
The survey is stratified by size of population protected to reduce the uncertainty of the
final estimate. Small rural communities have fewer people protected per department and
are less likely to respond to the survey. A larger number must be surveyed to obtain an
adequate sample of those departments. (NFPA also makes follow-up calls to a sample of
the smaller fire departments that do not respond, to confirm that those that did respond are
truly representative of fire departments their size.) On the other hand, large city
departments are so few in number and protect such a large proportion of the total U.S.
population that it makes sense to survey all of them. Most respond, resulting in excellent
precision for their part of the final estimate.

The survey includes the following information: (1) the total number of fire incidents,
civilian deaths, and civilian injuries, and the total estimated property damage (in dollars),
for each of the major property use classes defined in NFIRS; (2) the number of on-duty
firefighter injuries, by type of duty and nature of illness; 3) the number and nature of non-
fire incidents; and (4) information on the type of community protected (e.g., county versus
township versus city) and the size of the population protected, which is used in the
statistical formula for projecting national totals from sample results. The results of the
survey are published in the annual report Fire Loss in the United States. To download a
free copy of the report, visit http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/PDF/OS.fireloss.pdf.

Projecting NFIRS to National Estimates

As noted, NFIRS is a voluntary system. Different states and jurisdictions have different
reporting requirements and practices. Participation rates in NFIRS are not necessarily
uniform across regions and community sizes, both factors correlated with frequency and
severity of fires. This means NFIRS may be susceptible to systematic biases. No one at
present can quantify the size of these deviations from the ideal, representative sample, so
no one can say with confidence that they are or are not serious problems. But there is
enough reason for concern so that a second database -- the NFPA survey -- is needed to
project NFIRS to national estimates and to project different parts of NFIRS separately.
This multiple calibration approach makes use of the annual NFPA survey where its
statistical design advantages are strongest.

Scaling ratios are obtained by comparing NFPA’s projected totals of residential structure
fires, non-residential structure fires, vehicle fires, and outside and other fires, and
associated civilian deaths, civilian injuries, and direct property damage with comparable
totals in NFIRS. Estimates of specific fire problems and circumstances are obtained by
multiplying the NFIRS data by the scaling ratios. Reports for incidents in which mutual aid
was given are excluded NFPA’s analyses.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 12 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
44
Analysts at the NFPA, the USFA and the Consumer Product Safety Commission
developed the specific basic analytical rules used for this procedure. "The National
Estimates Approach to U.S. Fire Statistics," by John R. Hall, Jr. and Beatrice Harwood,
provides a more detailed explanation of national estimates. A copy of the article is
available online at http://www.nfpa.org/osds or through NFPA's One-Stop Data Shop.

Version 5.0 of NFIRS, first introduced in 1999, used a different coding structure for many data
elements, added some property use codes, and dropped others. The essentials of the approach
described by Hall and Harwood are still used, but some modifications have been necessary to
accommodate the changes in NFIRS 5.0.

Figure 1 shows the percentage of fires originally collected in the NFIRS 5.0 system. Each year’s
release version of NFIRS data also includes data collected in older versions of NFIRS that were
converted to NFIRS 5.0 codes.

Figure 1. Fires Originally Collected in NFIRS 5.0 by Year

100% 88%94%94%
79%

65%
80%

48%
60%

40% 21%

20%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

For 2002 data on, analyses are based on scaling ratios using only data originally collected in
NFIRS 5.0:

NFPA survey projections

NFIRS totals (Version 5.0)

For 1999 to 2001, the same rules may be applied, but estimates for these years in this form will
be less reliable due to the smaller amount of data originally collected in NFIRS 5.0; they should be
viewed with extreme caution.

NFIRS 5.0 introduced six categories of confined structure fires, including:

 cooking fires confined to the cooking vessel,
 confined chimney or flue fires,

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 13 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
45
  confined incinerator fire,
 confined fuel burner or boiler fire or delayed ignition,
 confined commercial compactor fire, and
 trash or rubbish fires in a structure with no flame damage to the structure or its contents.

Although causal and other detailed information is typically not required for these incidents, it is
provided in some cases (typically 10-20%). Some analyses, particularly those that examine
cooking equipment, heating equipment, fires caused by smoking materials, and fires started by
playing with fire, may examine the confined fires in greater detail. Because the confined fire
incident types describe certain scenarios, the distribution of unknown data differs from that of all
fires. Consequently, allocation of unknowns must be done separately.

Some analyses of structure fires show only non-confined fires. In these tables, percentages
shown are of non-confined structure fires rather than all structure fires. This approach has the
advantage of showing the frequency of specific factors in fire causes, but the disadvantage of
possibly overstating the percentage of factors that are seldom seen in the confined fire incident
types.

Other analyses include entries for confined fire incident types in the causal tables and show
percentages based on total structure fires. In these cases, the confined fire incident type is treated as
a general causal factor.

For most fields other than Property Use, NFPA allocates unknown data proportionally
among known data. This approach assumes that if the missing data were known, it would be
distributed in the same manner as the known data. NFPA makes additional adjustments to
several fields. Casualty and loss projections can be heavily influenced by the inclusion or
exclusion of unusually serious fire.

In the formulas that follow, the term “all fires” refers to all fires in NFIRS on the dimension
studied.

Factor Contributing to Ignition: In this field, the code “none” is treated as an unknown and
allocated proportionally. For Human Factor Contributing to Ignition, NFPA enters a code for “not
reported” when no factors are recorded. “Not reported” is treated as an unknown, but the code
“none” is treated as a known code and not allocated. Multiple entries are allowed in both of these
fields. Percentages are calculated on the total number of fires, not entries, resulting in sums greater
than 100%. Although Factor Contributing to Ignition is only required when the cause of ignition
was coded as: 2) unintentional, 3) failure of equipment or heat source; or 4) act of nature, data is
often present when not required. Consequently, any fire in which no factor contributing to ignition
was entered was treated as unknown.

In some analyses, all entries in the category of electrical failure or malfunction (factor
contributing to ignition 30-39) are combined and shown as “electrical failure or malfunction.”

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 14 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
46
This category includes:

31. Water-caused short circuit arc;

32. Short-circuit arc from mechanical damage;
33. Short-circuit arc from defective or worn insulation;
34. Unspecified short circuit arc;
35. Arc from faulty contact or broken connector, including broken power lines and loose
connections;
36. Arc or spark from operating equipment, switch, or electric fence;
37. Fluorescent light ballast; and 30.
Electrical failure or malfunction, other.

Type of Material First Ignited (TMI). This field is required only if the Item First Ignited falls
within the code range of 00-69. NFPA has created a new code “not required” for this field that is
applied when Item First Ignited is in code 70-99 (organic materials, including cooking materials
and vegetation, and general materials, such as electrical wire, cable insulation, transformers, tires,
books, newspaper, dust, rubbish, etc..) and TMI is blank. The ratio for allocation of unknown data
is:

(All fires – TMI Not required)

(All fires – TMI Not Required – Undetermined – Blank)

Heat Source. In NFIRS 5.0, one grouping of codes encompasses various types of open flames and
smoking materials. In the past, these had been two separate groupings. A new code was added to
NFIRS 5.0, which is code 60: “Heat from open flame or smoking material, other.” NFPA treats
this code as a partial unknown and allocates it proportionally across the codes in the 61-69 range,
shown below.

61. Cigarette;
62. Pipe or cigar;
63. Heat from undetermined smoking material;
64. Match;
65. Lighter: cigarette lighter, cigar lighter;
66. Candle;
67 Warning or road flare, fuse;
68. Backfire from internal combustion engine. Excludes flames and sparks from an exhaust
system, (11); and
69. Flame/torch used for lighting. Includes gas light and gas-/liquid-fueled lantern.

In addition to the conventional allocation of missing and undetermined fires, NFPA multiplies
fires with codes in the 61-69 range by

All fires in range 60-69

All fires in range 61-69

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 15 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
47
The downside of this approach is that heat sources that are truly a different type of open flame or
smoking material are erroneously assigned to other categories. The grouping “smoking materials”
includes codes 61-63 (cigarettes, pipes or cigars, and heat from undetermined smoking material,
with a proportional share of the code 60s and true unknown data.

Equipment Involved in Ignition (EII). NFIRS 5.0 originally defined EII as the piece of
equipment that provided the principal heat source to cause ignition if the equipment malfunctioned
or was used improperly. In 2006, the definition was modified to “the piece of equipment that
provided the principal heat source to cause ignition.” However, much of the data predates the
change. Individuals who have already been trained with the older definition may not change their
practices. To compensate, NFPA treats fires in which EII = NNN and heat source is not in the
range of 40-99 as an additional unknown.

To allocate unknown data for EII, the known data is multiplied by

All fires

(All fires – blank – undetermined – [fires in which EII =NNN and heat source <>40-99])

In addition, the partially unclassified codes for broad equipment groupings (i.e., code 100, - heating,
ventilation, and air conditioning, other; code 200- electrical distribution, lighting and power
transfer, other; etc.) were allocated proportionally across the individual code choices in their
respective broad groupings (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; electrical distribution,
lighting and power transfer, other; etc.). Equipment that is totally unclassified is not allocated
further. This approach as the same downside as the allocation of heat source 60 described above.
Equipment that is truly different is erroneously assigned to other categories.

In some analyses, various types of equipment are grouped together. (Confined fire incident types are
not discussed here)

Code Grouping EII Code NFIRS definitions

Central heat 132 Furnace or central heating unit
133 Boiler (power, process or heating)

Fixed or portable space heater 131 Furnace, local heating unit, built-in
123 Fireplace with insert or stove
124 Heating stove
141 Heater, excluding catalytic and oil-filled
142 Catalytic heater
143 Oil-filled heater

Fireplace or chimney 121 Fireplace, masonry

122 Fireplace, factory-built
125 Chimney connector or vent connector
126 Chimney – brick, stone or masonry

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 16 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
48
 127 Chimney-metal, including stovepipe or
flue

Wiring, switch or outlet 210 Unclassified electrical wiring

211 Electrical power or utility line
212 Electrical service supply wires from utility
214 Wiring from meter box to circuit breaker
216 Electrical branch circuit
217 Outlet, receptacle
218 Wall switch

Power switch gear or overcurrent 215 Panel board, switch board, circuit breaker
protection device board
219 Ground fault interrupter
222 Overcurrent, disconnect equipment
227 Surge protector

230 Unclassified lamp or lighting

231 Lamp-tabletop, floor or desk
232
Lamp, bulb or lighting Lantern or flashlight
233
Incandescent lighting fixture
234
Fluorescent light fixture or ballast
235
Halogen light fixture or lamp
236 Sodium or mercury vapor light fixture or
lamp
237
Work or trouble light
238
Light bulb
241
Nightlight
242
Decorative lights – line voltage
243 Decorative or landscape lighting – low
Cord or plug voltage
244
Sign

260 Unclassified cord or plug

261 Power cord or plug, detachable from appliance
262 Power cord or plug- permanently attached
263 Extension cord

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 17 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
49
Torch, burner or soldering iron 331 Welding torch

50
 332 Cutting torch
333 Burner, including Bunsen burners
334 Soldering equipment

Portable cooking or warming 631 Coffee maker or teapot

equipment
632 Food warmer or hot plate
633 Kettle
634 Popcorn popper
635 Pressure cooker or canner
636 Slow cooker
637 Toaster, toaster oven, counter-top broiler
638 Waffle iron, griddle
639 Wok, frying pan, skillet
641 Breadmaking machine

Item First Ignited. In most analyses, mattress and pillows (item first ignited 31) and bedding,
blankets, sheets, and comforters (item first ignited 32) are combined and shown as “mattresses
and bedding.” In many analyses, wearing apparel not on a person (code 34) and wearing apparel
on a person (code 35) are combined and shown as “clothing.” In some analyses, flammable and
combustible liquids and gases, piping and filters (item first ignited 60-69) are combined and
shown together

Area of Origin. Two areas of origin: bedroom for more than five people (code 21) and
bedroom for less than five people (code 22) are combined and shown as simply “bedroom.”

Rounding and percentages. The data shown are estimates and generally rounded. An entry of
zero may be a true zero or it may mean that the value rounds to zero. Percentages are calculated
from unrounded values. It is quite possible to have a percentage entry of up to 100%, even if the
rounded number entry is zero. The same rounded value may account for a slightly different
percentage share. Because percentages are expressed in integers and not carried out to several
decimal places, percentages that appear identical may be associated with slightly different
values.

Inflation. Property damage estimates are not adjusted for inflation unless so indicated.

Civilian Deaths and Injuries in Selected Properties 18 NFPA Fire Analysis and Research, Quincy, MA
51