FIRE PREVENTION - Research Project

FSE 101 Research Project

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Facts & Findings 3-4

Aftermath 5

History of Philly Fire Protection 5-7

Result & Impact 7-8

Similar Story 8-9

Conclusion 9-10

Pictures 11-12

Works Cited 13

Introduction

“They said they were out there no more than a minute or two until they felt it move from beneath their feet,” Said Detective Richard Brova of Philadelphia (Brova, 2014). This statement was issued January 15, 2014, just shortly after three young adults fell from a deteriorating fire escape balcony which permanently injured two and took the life of one you man. The young man and two women ages 25-26 were residents of the apartment complex where they lived happily as they were on the path to establishing their lives and careers in the big city of Philadelphia. Nobody would have thought that a quick two-minute smoke break that day would have resulted in a catastrophic and fatal fall from four stories up. What was originally designed and engineered to be a life-saving escape route turned out to be a trap for these young adults due to the lack of maintenance, lack of fire-code enforcement and lack of building inspections. Those three factors are critical in maintaining the safe structural integrity of any facility and when they are followed properly they can help avoid potential life threatening situations like this one.

Facts and Findings

The building was owned by Khorram Group L.L.P., since 2002. Khorram Group has multiple buildings in the Philadelphia area, some of which are residential apartment buildings; others are leasing units for places of business to establish their name (Steele & Newall, 2014). Rebecca Swanson with the city of Philadelphia Department of Licensing and Inspections said it was unclear if any recorded inspections are on file for this building. This raised concern amongst the Khorram Group’s other buildings for the same issue. The city requires the Licensing and Inspections Department to regularly inspect high-rises, schools, and special-assembly occupancy buildings such as nightclubs. But the city is not required to inspect fire escapes on smaller buildings unless a complaint is made, Swanson said. This implies that the residency may not have been inspected since its construction more than 50 years ago (Swanson, 2014). It is hard to believe that there were not prior statutes in place to inspect fire escapes, however as a result there may be new laws presented in order to enforce this procedure. According to Swanson, landlords and property owners are not responsible for the maintenance of such features like fire escapes; this includes the testing of the integrity of the escape and providing details as to the maximum rated weight capacity on the fire escape balcony. Looking at this issue at hand, the prevention technique could have been to have the manufacturer or engineer of the design encode a stamp of approval that this unit was designed for a specific amount of weight or occupancy per square foot. With proper signage or labeling in plain view, it becomes difficult to prevent anything like this incident from happening.

Aftermath

Although the building was taken under investigation, residents were permitted to remain in the building to their discretion, however all fire escapes like this balcony pictured below were quarantined for investigation. This raises concern while allowing the residents to remain in the building even when the fire escapes are blocked off under investigation. Although the article did not provide information regarding temporary evacuation plans, I believe that it would have been wise to first establish an interim emergency response and evacuation plan in case any fires were to arise while under investigation. At this point, nothing has been done to ensure the safety of the residents and no abatement procedures have been followed. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an abatement procedure is described as a correction to the safety or health hazard or violation found (OSHA, 2014). It is the owner’s responsibility since they are negligent for exposing this hazard and they are the controlling party for correcting this hazard.

History of Fire code

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) is responsible for generating and providing fire codes for all types of occupancies based on years of research, findings and facts which have generated from prior incidents or are created to prevent future problems we may face. The NFPA provides classification of occupancies in order to determine where a structure falls under the Fired Code 1 rules and regulations in which the building must meet the detailed criteria for safe design and functionality. According to the NFPA Fire Code 1 [101:6.1.8.1] this building falls under a residential occupancy, meaning it is designed for multiple residents permitted for living and sleeping for purposes other than health care, detention or corrections.(NFPA, 2012). Under NFPA Code [6.8.1.1] it also serves as a one or two family dwelling unit since the building apartments are equipped with bathrooms and cooking appliances and each individual unit has no more than three personnel occupying it. Therefore some basic means of fire protection must include smoke detectors and fire alarms to alert occupants of a fire and guide them to the nearest means of egress for safe exit. In this case, one mean of egress was considered to be the unstable fire balcony. Knowing that the fire balcony was designed for means of emergency egress, laws should have been in place by the city of Philadelphia to require annual inspections of egress design and condition on a pass or fail standard. The Philadelphia Fire Department has a Fire Code Unit whose main responsibility is to provide inspection and enforcement of most Philadelphia fire codes where fire department’s approval is required. In my findings under the Philadelphia International Fire Code (IFC), it states that regulations for residential occupancies in which they enforce include: Regular testing of smoke alarm functionality to be completed by the owner or tenants in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, Automatic fire sprinkler systems in one-and-two-family dwelling units, and battery powered emergency lighting in accordance with [604.1.2.1] (Philadelphia, 2010). It also states that means of egress shall be maintained on a regular basis and provide safe and effortless operational means in the event of an emergency [F-1030.7]. It was very unclear in the Philadelphia Fire code prior to this incident on findings any egress requirements that regulate the annual inspection and maintenance of egress design for fire balcony escapes.

Result

As a result of the incident, the building owner was immediately cited by city inspectors for the dysfunctional fire escape which collapsed under the three young adult’s feet. In a press interview, spokesperson Rebecca Swanson, on behalf of the Department of Licensing and Inspections, came out and said it was unclear whether the designed balcony was part of the building when it was last inspected, however we can see from the pictures that the balcony has aged with the building, meaning that an inspection arising from this building was nowhere recorded in the recent past. Since the law in Philadelphia is unclear in delegating who is responsible for maintaining fire escapes and repairing damages, the question is how the city can hold them more accountable for making sure this task gets done in the future. The obvious control over this situation would either be to do a better job delegating this task upon the owners and require proper documentation be kept on file with the building and city on an annual refresher basis, or to amend the bylaws with the proposition of a new rule which places clear responsibility on a particular party. One problem with this building in specific is that is was built in 1906 and is listed as a historic building within the city. Sometimes the issue arises on how to preserve old historic buildings while still keeping the age and significance of the building alive, however shortcuts cannot be taken and heads shall not look the other way when it pertains to safety and fire egress designs, especially seeing how the codes have ever changed since 1906 through 2014. Swanson stated that the city does not have a definitive way of inspecting and testing the structural weight capacity of a platform like this fire balcony, therefore we can presume it was overlooked in the past. Hopeful preventative measures for new building design in the future shall come equipped with a manufacturers or engineers approval of weight capacity and load factor.

Similar story

In 2009, a similar incident occurred after a 25 year old man died after falling from a deteriorating fire escape outside an apartment above a Philadelphia café. Investigators found loose bolts and fasteners along with improper maintenance to be the root cause of this fatal fall. Not only were the individuals on the balcony injured, but the patrons of the café could have been seriously harmed as they were exposed under this hazard. What makes this café story different than the Khorram apartment was the city licensing officials shut the entire building down and displaced nearly a dozen residents while the investigation was being conducted in an attempt to prevent any other casualties from occurring due to any other findings of violations (Johnson, 2009). The Licensing and Inspections Department began conducting spot checks of smaller apartment buildings which uncovered multiple violations and corrective actions to be taken. With more than 5000,000 properties within the city, it is clear than the Philadelphia Licensing and Inspections Department is falling short of providing adequate inspections on a regular basis. For years, the city has relied on tenants and owners to report any concerns regarding structural integrity and safety concerns. This incident is the result of poor delegation, and understaffed trained professionals to complete a thorough inspection. At this point, City Council members have rapidly proposed regulations requiring owners of small apartments and buildings to produce and submit regular structural-engineering reports, similar to the laws in New York and Chicago. In New York, the fire code specifies that the persons, business, department, agencies, or combinations are authorized and responsible for administration and enforcement of the Uniform Fire Code, unless any portion opposing this code is clearly identified (New York, 2008). Although discrepancies arose from this as it was said to be the responsibility of the city and department to perform these tasks. The fire and building code change process in Philadelphia, alike like many other cities and legislatures ahs a process where a code change proposal must first be drafted, secondly it must be made available to the public. The public has a say in the voting process, therefore landlords, owners, builders and city officials may all have opposing views in most cases. Once the code proposal is decided on it is either approved and voted on or disapproved immediately. Code changes do not happen over night without an administrative order, although when you are looking at two instances in the last five years regarding reported fire balcony incidents, then there must be something done immediately to correct this.

Conclusion

As of now, almost two months after the incident, there have been no statutes amended in regards to resolving this routine inspection concern amongst residential occupancies in Philadelphia. Although owners and landlords are walking on egg shells as they rapidly try to provide their own inspections and repairs for egress and other fire protection features, this issue is still being overlooked and performance based reports are not generated nearly enough. Since 2009, this is balcony collapse goes down as the second fatal incident resulting from poor maintenance on fire balconies. Whether new buildings will have code requirements in the future pertaining to these balconies or whether they will not be obsolete in the future still awaits a decision. The safety starts with the engineering controls and design; once it’s intact the performance of features must not be overlooked. The Philadelphia Fire Code [F-103.2] reveals requirements for fire protection systems in residential occupancies; however it needs to be reworked in order to comply with the needs for annual inspection reports. It is apparent that these fire balconies in demand of a weather proof design that will not give-way to the elements they’re exposed to over the years and they will need such a design with reinforcements in place in order to prevent a complete fall-out under malfunction. The result of this four story catastrophe is due to the lack thereof city professionals to enforce their codes and discover violations. Compliance for safety should be a daily task which comes with common sense to all people who interact with these applications, however as the two surviving females state in the post-accident interview, “It was hard to predict that this could have happened, the iron rails began to collapse and the square platform separated from the wall,” –Both the crippled roommates of their late friend who died on the day of the apartment balcony collapse in Philadelphia, Massachusetts.

Pictures

1.01

Pictured here is a balcony similar to the one that collapsed on the same building. It is critical that the existing balconies receive attention in the aftermath of this event in order to prevent others from collapsing.

1.02

The frame of the balcony has rusted over the years of being exposed to the outdoor elements since 1906.

1.03

Here we see the multiple-story “Historic” building where it was once equipped with the same fire escape balcony on each level.

Works Cited

1. Brova, R. (2014, January 14). Interview by Allison Steele []. Man dies in "brutal" fall

after fire escape collapse., Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-
15/news/46188749_1_fire-escape-swanson-historic-places

1. Johnson, D. (2009, August 31). Fire escape collapse kills man. Retrieved

from http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Man-Killed-After-Center-City-Balcony-Collapsed-56273262.html

1. National Fire Protection

2. Association, N. F. (2012). NFPA Fire Code 1.

4. New York State Department of State. (2008). Administration and Enforcement of

the Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code and the Energy Conservation Construction Code. Retrieved From: http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Administration_and_Enforcement_of_the_Uniform_Code.pdf

5. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA. (2014). Bureau of Labor

and Statistics.

6. Philadelphia Fire Code. (2010). Philadelphia International Fire Code. Retrieved

From: http://www.phila.gov/fire/pdfs/2010_Philadelphia_Fi.pdf

7. Steele, A., & Newall, M. (2014, January 14). Man dies in "brutal" fall after fire

escape collapse. Retrieved from http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-
15/news/46188749_1_fire-escape-swanson-historic-places

8. Swanson, R. (2014, January 14). Interview by Allison Steele []. Man dies in

"brutal" fall after fire escape collapse., Retrieved from

http://articles.philly.com/2014-01-15/news/46188749_1_fire-escape-

swanson-historic-places

Pictures retrieved from www.Philly.com

Page 0