This office is responsible for construction plan reviews, testing the flammability of products, fire equipment maintenance, building and construction site inspections, conducting fire drills, providing employee and student training, fire investigation, and the development of university- wide design and construction standards related to fire safety.
Currently, in my community, there are no local or state enforceable codes which apply to the fire-resistancy of furnishings. All that we have to rely on are national standards, such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology tests which manufacturers use to design fire-resistent furnishings. The problem is that these tests focus primarily on cigarette ignition of the product surface fabric. The style and geometry of the product, in terms of creating pockets where a dropped cigarette or other hot items can come to rest, and the ticking of mattresses and the substrate of furniture, commonly made of polyurethane, are often excluded from the testing process.
Also, a product can meet these standards by having fire-resistancy as an inherent part of the fabric or by having a fire-resistant chemical applied to the surface. This can make a vast difference in long term fire resistancy because of wear and tear and regular cleaning. Chemicals tend to wear off or wash out, resulting in a product that no longer meets requirements. The fire resistant surface fabric can also be violated, exposing the combustible non-resistent substrate. So the question becomes, are these standards enough? The State of California and the City of Boston apparently don't think so. They have their own standards related to furnishings which include a composite burn test as opposed to a component burn test. Other states such as Minnesota, Ohio, and Massachusetts have adopted standards for medical care facilities. Six other states are considering adoption of broader regulations for all upholstered furniture.
We at the University of Rochester don't think the existing national standards are enough either, which is why we developed our own guidelines. Even the National Fire Protection Association, which has general requirements related to ignition from a cigarette in chapter 31 of the Life Safety Code for certain occupancies, doesn't address smoke levels or smoke toxicity.
The rate of burn and heat release, in terms of preventing flashover, are now beginning to receive more attention but smoke density and toxicity are still not considered; and smoke is, as we all know, the primary killer in fires.
The burning of common furnishings such as mattresses and stuffed furniture can release a number of toxic gases such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide (recent studies in France have discovered that this is as common a cause of death in fires as carbon monoxide), nitrogen dioxide and hydrogen chloride. Human tolerance of these products of combustion is very low, resulting in quick and certain death for occupants.
Interior finishes, like furnishings, also need to be considered. They are required by New York state code to meet certain flame spread ratings based on the type of occupancy but there are no requirements related to smoke levels or toxicity for these products.
This leaves it up to the institution or local authority to determine whether the minimum standards and codes offer an appropriate level of fire safety for furnishings and interior finishes or whether it is better to develop local requirements. Considering that upholstered furniture and bedding are very common points of fire origin in multiple dwellings, resulting in numerous deaths and millions of dollars in damages each year, we felt local requirements were necessary.
As I mentioned earlier, the initial concern over this issue came from our hospital. The Hospital Value Analysis Committee, which is responsible for approving new products for use in the hospital, approached our department with a concern about the use of foam mattresses in several special care units. Then a potentially serious fire occurred in the psychiatric emergency department when a very disturbed patient convinced his family to loosen his restraints and give him a cigarette and lighter which he then used to ignite the mattress on his bed. The resulting fire caused extensive smoke spread throughout a large portion of the emergency department, disrupting services for over an hour.
The problem was magnified locally when the Rochester Fire Department responded to a multi-fatal fire in a residence and the toxic gases from burning furnishings were focused on by the media as the cause of death. Research:
VIDEO - STANDARD FIRE RESISTANT MATTRESS BURN TEST
Our project began with research to establish a good understanding of the problem and to set priorities. The first step was a large scale burn test of foam mattresses which were presented by the Value Analysis Committee.
Four different vendors presented mattresses which allegedly met all current fire safety standards. All suggested that their product would pass our test and each eagerly provided a mattress to burn. All four mattresses were taken to the fire department's training academy and, with the joint involvement of University and fire department personnel, subjected to large-scale testing. Each mattress was placed on a metal bed frame and subjected to non-scientific burn tests consisting of exposure to a lighted cigarette and exposure to a single match, with both placed in the center of the mattress. Several variations of each test were planned, both with and without bed sheets. There was also an intention to subject each mattress to a waste basket fire placed adjacent to the mattress. All mattresses did well with the cigarette test. Three of the four eventually ignited but burned slowly, indicating compliance with national test methods. The fourth mattress did not ignite from the cigarette. The second test, involving a lit match, did not fair as well. One mattress ignited soon after exposure and quickly burned with such intensity that all members of the test team, although prepared to extinguish the fire with fire extinguishers, were forced to evacuate without any chance of extinguishment. Two mattresses also failed because of unacceptable ignition and burn rates when exposed to a waste basket fire. Only one was accepted for use in our hospital.
Another test, using a waste basket fire, was conducted on a
dormitory mattress taken from existing stock. This mattress was also
judged to be unacceptable because of ignition and burn rates, plus the
density of smoke created. A cigarette test of a dormitory mattress resulted
in a finding that the substrate smolders internally for a considerable period
of time with little or no external signs of fire. This could possibly lead to a
lack of recognition of a fire or a false belief that the fire is out. A
subsequent test of a dormitory style waste basket was conducted in
conjunction with local fire investigators and was found to ignite easily and
burn for a total of 32 minutes to the point of breakdown to a flowing liquid
and eventually to total consumption. The results of these tests, coupled with
the significant smoke from, and burn damage to, the mattress involved in
the psychiatric unit fire, proved to us that existing requirements were
simply not enough to adequately protect our university community. The
development of standards for furnishings at the University became a
commitment, beginning with a focus on mattresses.
The next step was performing computer modeling of escape times
from a typical University of Rochester dormitory to show the length of
time needed to control fire and smoke spread until all occupants could
escape. We found the average escape time for a typical dormitory student
to be just under three minutes but a variety of factors could increase this
escape time to almost ten minutes.
Based on our fire tests and information from toxicity studies, coupled with
projected escape times, it was possible to demonstrate that strict fire and
smoke controls for furnishings were needed. This allowed us to gain
administrative support for our project.
Development:
Development of our guidelines began by contacting our Purchasing
Department and our legal people to obtain information necessary to
produce an acceptable format which would be non-discriminatory to
vendors, would keep product costs at acceptable levels, and would not place
the University at an unacceptable level of risk because we implemented
more stringent standards. We then identified the necessary elements for our
standard and developed the criteria for each element. Many of these
criteria were taken from existing standards and modified where necessary
to meet our needs. We then contacted several vendors to verify that a
product could be manufactured that would meet our guidelines without
adding considerable cost. We found that they could.
TEST CRITERIA AND TEST FORM OVERHEADS.
A test criteria for documentation and consistency was then prepared. For
large-scale tests, we chose the California Flammability Test Procedure for
Mattresses for Use in High Risk Occupancies known as Cal 121.
For small scale tests, we chose the NFPA 701 Standard Methods of Fire
Tests for Flame-Resistant Textiles and Films such as carpeting, wall
coverings, and other interior finishes. From there, we arrived at a decision
as to what would constitute acceptance. Our desire was not to prepare rigid
standards that limit our flexibility for acceptance. We merely wanted to
establish guidelines that would eliminate any item that had the potential to
create flashover and untenable smoke conditions prior to rescuing victims
and prior to completing an orderly evacuation. We also consulted with the
Rochester Fire Department to be certain they were in agreement with our
approach and with our guidelines in terms of technical content. They found
no problems with either and suggested their use throughout the community.
Once these steps were completed and a full draft of the guidelines
was prepared, our purchasing, legal and administrative personnel
performed a complete review, making appropriate wording changes
without changing the scope of the document. The final step was a review by
local fire officials and by peers from area institutions.
This step resulted in more minor changes to make the guidelines more
global for community use but eventually we were ready for
implementation.
"GUIDELINES - FINAL PRODUCT" OVERHEADS (2)
Most everyone we communicated with understood the reasoning behind the
guidelines and complied.
A few were resistent, believing that existing standards were sufficient and
citing the old adage "nothing serious has happened in thirty years so why
should we worry about it now". We responded that we prefer to be pro-
active as opposed to reactive. We don't want to wait until a fire causes a
death to act.
PICU VIDEO.
Because of the guideline designation as opposed to required standards, we
are allowed flexibility in judging acceptability. We can look at the results
of the product test, evaluate the type of use for which the product is
intended and make an informed decision on allowing use. In addition, the
entire University community is more aware of fire safety concerns because
of these guidelines.
Our Facilities people ask about the acceptability of new products they
intend to use such as pipe coverings, our Purchasing Department contacts
us to check on the status of new furniture and furnishing products, our
Design & Construction people keep us in the loop on products they intend
to use in construction and renovation projects, and employees call to ask
about the use of certain furnishings because they have been made aware of
the guidelines. Various University committees also contact us as part of
their evaluation process to receive information on design and fire
resistancy on products being considered for use.
Overall we are pleased with the outcome of our furnishing
flammability guideline project and feel that fire safety at the University of
Rochester has been enhanced because of them.
csaoutln.172
7-21-93
Implementation:
Implementation involved making arrangements for testing on a
regular basis, both internally for small scale tests and at the local fire
academy for large scale testing. We initially used a fume hood within our
office for small scale tests but recently we obtained a glove box which we
modified to meet our needs. By using the fume hood, we were able to
observe smoke conditions but the fume hood did not provide the ability to
test smoke density or to obtain toxic gas readings. With the glove box, we
are able to capture the products of combustion for testing. Once test
arrangements were in place and an appropriate form was developed to
report our findings, members of the University community responsible for
specifying, ordering, or installing any furnishings or interior finishes were
notified of the guidelines in writing, advising them to contact our office
before using an item to assure their product was in compliance. Because we
were interested in all forms of furnishings, we also suggested that we be
allowed to look at product design to check for vulnerable ignition points
and wear points, and to look for pockets where ignition materials could
become trapped.
Review:
In the time that our guidelines have been in place, we have
experienced good cooperation from most all interested parties at the
University. Numerous products have been submitted for testing with mixed
results. Many perform as advertised but a significant number have failed to
meet advertized compliance standards or failed to comply with our
guidelines, and therefore have been rejected for use at our University.