NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 585

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards

Fire and Life Safety for the

Handicapped

JC00

157 10.585 980

.2
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act ot Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (I) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology. THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry, and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers: Absolute Physical Quantities' — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities; provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices; and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers: Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering' — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology' — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods. THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government. The Institute consists of the following centers: Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234. 'Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NATION*!- BUftKAV Fire and Life Safely for the ""'ii^-r

li i' i JUL 8 1980 Handicapped

Ciaa>

Reports of ' ^^'^ _ THE CONFERENCE ON FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED /q^-,

held at the National Bureau of Standards , November 26-29, 1979 ^

WORKSHOPS ON LIFE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

held in Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, California August and September 1979

B. M. Levin, Editor

Center for Fire Research , National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

Supported by: Federal Emergency Management Agency

Office of Mitigation and Research, and the U.S. Fire Administration Washington. D.C. 20472

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Bureau of Developmental Disabilities, and the Office of Facilities Engineering Washington, D.C. 20201 National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Fire Research Washington. D.C. 20234

Supersedes NBSIR 80-1965 / W \

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity, Technology and Innovation NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director Issued July 1980
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 80-600082

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 585

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 585, 154 pages (July 1980) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1980 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. Price $5.00 (Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)
This report was prepared by the AIA Research Corporation and the Center for Fire Research of the National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards. It is designed to be a comprehensive

basic source document in the area of fire and life safety for the handicapped. As such, it contains a wide spectrum of ideas and opinions derived from various experts in relevant fields. The statements and conclusions in the panel and workshop reports represent a summary or synthesis of ideas presented by individual group members. Individual panel or workshop members may disagree with some of the statements contained in their own group's report. The statements and conclusions in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Bureau of Standards, or any of the other sponsors. No

endorsement of any specific product or system is intended.
The Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped was sponsored by:

1. National Bureau of Standards-Center for Fire Research

2. Federal Emergency Management Agency

a. Office of Mitigation and Research

b. U.S. Fire Administration

3. National Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped

'f. AIA Research Corporation (American Institute of Architects Research Corporation)

5. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

a. Rehabilitation Services Administration/Bureau of Developmental Disabilities

b. Public Health Services

c. Office of Facilities Engineering

6. The President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped

7. The Veterans Administration

8. The National Fire Protection Association

This printing was partially supported by: Gallaudet College , ^ ,

. . The President's Committee on Employment of the Handicapped

United States Fire Administration/Federal Emergency Management Agency.

IV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The contributions of many people and organizations were necessary to make this conference and the preparatory workshops successful. Their contributions are gratefully acknowledged, including those

not specifically recognized below. Many experts in a variety of fields worked diligently in the panels and in the workshops preceding the conference. Their contributions are the tangible output of the conference and most of the content of

this report. The names of the members of the panels and workshops and the names of the officers are

listed in this report. Sharon Machida of AIA Research Corporation did a variety of editing, writing, and administrative

tasks: the quality of her work was outstanding. Jo Ann Lorden, Margaret Harper, Omar Halmat, and

their colleagues of the NBS Facility Services Division and Aaron Lucas and his printing staff cheerfully met our ever changing conference needs. Mat Heyman, Stanley Lichtenstein, Deborah Dwornik, and

Raleigh Pinskey provided the publicity. Lora Kauffman, Elizabeth Van Lowe, Kathleen Magruder, Wanda Duffin, and Carol Gassaway of NBS and Donald Geis, Robert Sockwell, and Paul McClure of AIA

Research Corporation worked through the night so that draft panel reports would be available for review on schedule. Brenda Avery typed the final report with severe time requirements. The financial support of the U.S. Fire Administration in conducting the workshops and of the Office of Mitigation and Research in conducting the conference is directly attributed to the foresight of Phineas Anderson, Charles Boehne, and Cliff McLain. James Kerr and John Fannin, who were the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) project officers, provided valuable advice and administrative

support. Ashot Mnatzakanian and Jonas Morehart of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) assisted by arranging for HEW support for the conference. The support and assistance of the NBS Center for Fire Research Management, especially Harold

Nelson, Irwin Benjamin, and Frederic Clarke, and of the Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped, especially Howard Teich, Edmond Leonard, Edwina Juillet, Armand Burgun, and Peggy

Smith, were invaluable and appreciated. A special acknowledgment is given to Earle Kennett and Gretchen Bank of AIA Research Corporation.

Earle Kennett directed the AIA Research Corporation project and personally assisted in many ways

from the beginning of the planning through the preparation of this report. Gretchen Bank performed many administrative and editorial tasks for the workshops and the conference and in the preparation of the report.

Finally, recognized are the efforts of the NBS project staff: Norman Groner, Peggy Kunka, Jennifer Gagnon, and especially Roseanne Paulsen; her attention to the details of the conference and the needs

of the participants was invaluable. The National Fire Protection Association, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, and the Washington Fire News Services graciously permitted us to reprint material from their publications.
PREFACE

Many Americans are disabled to the point where their ability to cope with a fire can be considered

impaired. These citizens are usually at a greater than average risk from fire except when they are segregated in institutions that provide custodial care and safety. Society is modifying and eliminating the architectural and other barriers that have hindered the

disabled's access to public buildings Their increased presence in these buildings has made the

potential problems of the disabled in fire emergencies more visible and has resulted in increased

attention to the safety of handicapped persons by those responsible for providing fire safety. While there is increased awareness of the problem, progress has been limited by: (1) relatively low

public and professional concern with the problem, and (2) a lack of available guidance, knowledge and

experience.

In the Spring of 1978, an ad hoc Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped was formed with the

goals of increasing national concern about the problem and disseminating information about effective

actions. While the Task Force is concerned about the safety of the disabled in all emergencies, fire safety was given priority. It was recognized that before a program could be undertaken to disseminate information about effective actions, it would be necessary to assemble and evaluate such information. One approach to obtaining evaluated information is to invite knowledgeable and experienced

professionals to share their knowledge and experiences in seminars or workshops. This is the approach

used in the Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped.

This report contains the results of the Conference and of a series of workshops conducted as part of the preparation for the Conference. This report is intended to be a valuable source document for a variety of people who have an active concern and responsibility for providing for the safety of the

disabled in fire emergencies. It should also be an important document for those responsible for research priorities or who are interested in doing research in the area, and for those with policy type

responsibilities

In particular, the information in this report is assisting the Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped in proceeding toward its goals of increasing national concern about the problem and

disseminating information about effective actions. The Center for Fire Research of the National Bureau of Standards is using it as a guide in developing a research program in that area. The Conference was organized and hosted by the Center for Fire Research, National Engineering

Laboratory, of the National Bureau of Standards but the active support and contributions of the co- sponsors were invaluable. The AIA Research Corporation conducted a series of workshops as the major part of preparations for the Conference. The workshop reports served as the information base for the Conference participants. These reports have lasting value and are included in this report. Funding for conducting these workshops was provided by a grant from the U.S. Fire Administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to the AIA Research Corporation. The AIA Research Corporation also provided invaluable assistance in the conducting and recording of the Conference and the preparation of this report. The cost of their efforts and the travel expenses of many of the participants were covered by a grant from the Office of Mitigation and Research of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

shared with the National Bureau of Standards the cost of conducting the Conference. The ultimate success of the Conference and of the Quality of this report is, of course, dependent on the

capabilities of the participants at the preliminary workshops and at the Conference. Great care was

exercised in developing panels of experts with good mixes of relevant backgrounds. Many

knowledgeable people were consulted in selecting invitees to assure that we would invite only people of
acknowledged competence. A major criterion for selecting invitees was the need for relevant

disciplines and interest groups to be represented on each panel: this mix of disciplines was maintained

quite well at the Conference because a very large percentage of invitees accepted and attended. The Conference and the Report are only first steps in assuring the fire safety of our disabled citizens. The Conference made clear to the participants that fire safety for disabled persons requires modifications, additions or other improvements to all aspects of the fire protection system. Many of the changes can be made with existing technology. Progress will come from many specific improvements rather than from any one dramatic change. Just as the Conference depended on the cooperative efforts of many organizations and of experts with varied backgrounds, future progress will depend on the ideas, programs and activities of a wide variety of organizations and individuals.

Bernard M. Levin

Project Coordinator

Earle Kennett

Project Coordinator

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE ABSTRACT 1 CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION

Introduction 2 Officers ^ Conference Participants 5 Workshop Participants 6 Agenda 7 PLENARY SESSIONS

Letter from Max Cleland, Honorary Chairperson 8 Monday night, November 26, 1979 Welcoming Speech from the National Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped by Howard Teich ^ Keynote Speech by John Leffler, Veterans Administration 11 Tuesday, November 27, 1979 State of the Art Pursuant to Life Safety in Buildings Made Accessible

to the Handicapped by Irwin A. Benjamin, National Bureau of Standards 15 PANEL REPORTS

Overview

Report 21 Committee Membership 2^ Alarm Systems

Report 25 Panel Membership 31 Comments by Clarence Nicodemus 32

EgressReport

Panel Membership 39 Comments by John G. Degenkolb ^7 Refuge

Report

Panel Membership f-1^ Comments by Donald Belles. . ^

Comments by Bert Cohn ^

Comments by Clarence Nicodemus Comments by Donald Watson

viii
PAGE

Self-Protection

Report. 61 Panel Membership 66 Management Actions Report ^' Panel Membership 76 Emergency Service Actions Report 77 Panel Membership Comments by Clarence Nicodemus ^-5 WORKSHOP REPORTS

Workshop 1: Codes and Standards - August 13-1^^, 1979, Washington, D.C. Report 87

Participants Workshop 2: Emergency Preparedness Planning - September 5-6, 1979, Washington, D.C. Report 93

Participants 102 Workshop 3: Building Design - September 10, 1979, Washington, D.C. Report 103

Participants 108 Workshop k\ Education - September 13-1^^, 1979, Washington, D.C. Report : : 109

Participants 118 Workshop 5: Consumer Interests - September 17, 1979, Washington, D.C. Report 119 Participants Workshop 6: Products - September 20-21, 1979, Sacramento, California Report 125 Participants 132 PAPERS

Augmentation of the Report by the Panel on Self-Protection by Clarence L. Nicodemus 133 K Street Mall Project (Emergency Egress System)

by Clarence L. Nicodemus 136 Research on Safety for the Handicapped: Philosophy & Priorities by A. F. van Bogaert 1^2

ix

ABSTRACT

On November 26-29, 1979, the National Bureau of Standards hosted a Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped where 80 experts discussed the problems of the handicapped in fire emergencies, safety procedures, and hardware that upgrades their safety. The major work of the Conference was

conducted by seven panels that met in parallel: overview, alarm systems, egress, refuge, self- protection, management actions, and emergency service actions. Six workshops were held in preparation for the Conference during August and September 1979 in the area of life safety for the handicapped in emergencies. The workshops were: codes and standards, emergency preparedness planning, building design, education, consumer interests, and products. Each

of the 13 panels and workshops prepared a report containing background information and the recommendations of the panels. This report contains the 13 reports, the speeches at plenary sessions and supplementary comments by some of the participants.

KEY WORDS

Building codes; building design; building fires; building management; egress; emergencies; escape; evacuation; fire alarm systems; fire departments; fire safety; handicapped; life safety; refuge.

1
INTRODUCTION

Recent progress in making public facilities available to the handicapped and in deinstitutionalization of the more severely handicapped has increased the need for greater efforts to ensure the safety

of the handicapped in fire and other emergencies. tMany experts from a variety of disciplines have

been concerned with specific aspects of this problem. However, there has been no national forum or other opportunity where these experts have been able to exchange and evaluate information. This Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped was the first national conference where serious and

concentrated attention was paid to the safety of the disabled in fire and other emergencies. The conference was structured to maximize the exchange and the evaluation of ideas, possible

"solutions," and experiences with specific "solutions" in the area of fire safety and the handicapped. The approach was to assign each participant to one of seven panels. Each panel was given a charge or assignment which is described later. Each panel discussed its assigned topic for two days with a view toward assembling information and developing recommendations for inclusion in a panel report. No

formal papers were presented in the panel sessions.

It was recognized that the panels would be more productive if the panel members were provided

with some general information about the topic prior to the meeting to supplement their expertise in specific areas. This was accomplished by conducting six workshops on six related topics during August

and September prior to the conference and distributing the six workshop reports to the conference

participants before the conference. The charge or assignment for the workshops is described later. The participants in both the workshops and the conference were carefully selected and assigned. The workshop participants tended to be very knowledgeable about the specific topic under discussion. The conference participants were assigned to panels so that each panel would have participants with a broad range of backgrounds so that all ideas could be evaluated from a number of perspectives. The

workshops and panels were kept relatively small (ten to twelve) to encourage the active participation

of all members. The workshop reports were prepared by the staff of AIA Research Corporation after the workshops were completed and the reports were reviewed by the workshop members. Each of the conference panel reports was prepared the night of the second day of panel deliberations. Each was

written by the panel officers and an assigned staff member of the National Bureau of Standards or AIA

Research Corporation. The draft panel reports were distributed to the panel members prior to the beginning of the third day of discussion. The third day of panel sessions was limited to 90 minutes and was directed toward accepting and modifying the draft reports.

All participants were given the opportunity to submit individual contributions that modify or

clarify the panel or workshop reports. These submissions are included in this report.

It was, of course, impossible to invite all those who possess the desired qualifications. To

increase the number who could participate, in general, the same persons were not invited to the workshops and the conference, with the exception of the workshop chairpersons and a few other

participants who were invited to attend both in order to provide the necessary continuity. The workshops and their charges were: CODES AND STANDARDS To concer^trate on the adequacies, inadequacies and potential of codes and standards in ensuring the fire safety of handicapped

individuals. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS To concentrate on the availability, development and use of PLANNING emergency preparedness plans to assist in the protection and

removal of handicapped individuals during emergencies.

2
BUILDING DESIGN To concentrate on the capability of evaluating, using and

developing building design practices, concepts, and guidelines to promote and provide for the fire safety of handicapped individuals. The scope covers new and existing buildings. EDUCATION To concentrate on the development and use of appropriate

educational information, materials and techniques to promote

fire safety for handicapped individuals. CONSUMER INTERESTS To concentrate on the abilities, disabilities, needs, and desires of handicapped individuals in terms of providing for and promoting

fire safety. PRODUCTS To concentrate on the availability, need, use and future development of products and systems to assist in providing for the fire safety of handicapped individuals. The Conference Panels and their charges were: ALARM SYSTEMS:

SELF-PROTECTION: MANAGEMENT ACTIONS: EMERGENCY SERVICE

ACTIONS:

To concentrate on the psychological and physical aspects of alerting and informing handicapped individuals and other persons during emergency situations. To concentrate on the psychological and physical aspects of the movement of handicapped individuals from danger to safety. To concentrate on the psychological and physical aspects of providing

for areas of refuge for handicapped individuals. To concentrate on the psychological and physical aspects of handi- capped individuals providing for personal protection and performing

specific fire safety duties. To concentrate on the developmental, educational and implementation

aspects of providing for certain managerial and planning actions that increase the fire safety of handicapped individuals. To concentrate on the development and implementation by emergency

services of appropriate actions that provide for the fire safety

protection, rescue, and other needs of handicapped individuals.

3
OFFICERS OF THE CONFERENCE ON

Honorary Chairperson:

Conference Chairperson:

Project Coordinators:

Technical Coordinator:

Task Force Liaison:

Arrangements Chairperson:

Media Coordinator:

SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Mr. Max Cleland Administrator Veterans Administration Washington, D.C. 20^*20 Dr. Frederic Clarke

Director Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 2023^* Dr. Bernard Levin Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 2023if Mr. Earle Kennett Programs Director AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Mr. Harold Nelson Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 2023^

Mr. Howard Teich Stutman & Rothberg

150 E. 58th Street New York, New York 10022 Ms. Roseanne Paulsen Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 2023^^ Mr. Mat Heyman

National Bureau of standards Washington, D.C. 2023^
o 2

Q/ t- s <

o' 53 > 2 fo o p

'5 -

< H zu

< < l| l^iS III

S cj^zDi^-^^

<: < < tij

;

g-^ e5 0-5 D iH '-^

S;^ ^ c 2 E J:^

? -S. c o 5^ _ o o ^ -g = 3 ^ CTtS ^ o Q u: q: < 2 Q

c"!" g 5^ a; _ 00

;S ^ 3 S ^ 3 1 i r-^oioDirnZQUiIcQDi

•3 .5^ i:: o i_ c I I

'2 .2 o 15 i z X O u- s CL a,

5
2 -D 1* -2 , > c £ c X <-, ^ ^ CL '!ri >

" 1 "5 £ o

O .5i .2 ^ Oi £ ^ 2 £

. ^r- o o

.2 ,

k

CO Q

2 I J Z Q, ^

Q Q

< <

o +-.

6
Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped

November 26-29, 1979 AGENDA

Monday - November 26, 1979

1:15 p.m. Meeting of Panel Chairpersons and Recorders

7:30 Welcoming Dinner

8:30 Welcome to NBS, Dr. John Lyons, Director, National Engineering Laboratory, National Bureau of Standards

Comments by Earle Kennett, Programs Director, AIA

Research Corporation

Comments by Howard Teich, National Task Force on Life

Safety and the Handicapped

Keynote Address by John Leffler, Associate Deputy Administrator, Veterans Administration

Tuesday - November 27, 1979

9:00 a.m. Plenary Session

Opening Remarks, Dr. Frederic Clarke, Director, NBS Center for Fire Research

Recent Code Advances, Irwin Benjamin, Chief, NBS Fire Safety Engineering Division

Reports of Summer Workshops, Chairpersons - James Dowling, Edwina Juillet, Richard Klinker, Phineas Anderson, Ronald Mace, Clarence Nicodemus

11:00 Panel Meetings Wednesday - November 28, 1979

8:45 a.m. Panel Meetings

4:00 p.m. Chairpersons and staff prepare draft reports Thursday - November 29, 1979

8:45 a.m. Panel Meetings - Discussion of Draft Reports

10:45 Plenary Session - Dr. Frederic Clarke, Presiding - Summary of Panel Reports

12:15 p.m. Adjourn

7
Office of the Administrator

of Veterans Affairs

Washington, D.C. 20420

Veterans

Administration

November 26, 1979

TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE

ON LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED

I am sorry I am unable to be with you tonight and later as you pursue the important business of your conference on Fire Safety and the Handicapped. President Carter joins me in wishing you well and has asked that

I convey his hopes that your deliberations are both enlightening

and productive and the conference is a success.

I am particularly grateful to you for designating me your honorary

chairman. Obviously, I have great personal interest in the subject

you meet to study and discuss and I look forward to learning what

transpires.

As Administrator of Veterans Affairs and, thus, a representative

of many thousands of handicapped Americans, I also have an important

and abiding professional interest.

I wish you Godspeed and express my support and that of the Veterans Administration during your conference and in your subsequent activities. Ivy 111/

MAX CLELAND V Administrator

8
WELCOMING SPEECH HOWARD TEICH CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED

NBS SYMPOSIUM

November 26, 1979 THIS NBS CONFERENCE REPRESENTS FOR THE TASK FORCE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AN IM- PORTANT STEP TOWARDS ITS TARGETED GOAL OF PROVIDING THE CONTEXT FOR CREATING

A LIFE-SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE HANDICAPPED, WHICH WILL ALSO BENEFIT THE ABLE- BODIED COMMUNITY. AS THE SYMPOSIUM OPENS, I AM DELIGHTED TO WELCOME YOU ON

BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED, AND TO THANK YOU FOR GIVING YOUR TIME TO THIS IMPORTANT ENDEAVOR.

THE IDEAS BEHIND THE TASK FORCE CAME TO FRUITION IN MARCH, 1978, WHEN A GROUP

OF US MET IN WASHINGTON, D.C. TO DISCUSS THE MOST REALISTIC WAY TO CONCENTRATE

PUBLIC ATTENTION ON THE SUBJECT OF LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED, AND THE

BEST WAY TO COLLECT AND DISSEMINATE ALL AVAILABLE DATA. IN DECEMBER , 1978, A PLANNING CONFERENCE FUNDED BY THE USFA BROUGHT TOGETHER 25 PERSONS TO OUTLINE THE STATE OF THE ART, AND DEVELOP A STRATEGY FOR POOLING KNOWLEDGE IN THE FIELD. THE WORKSHOPS THAT WERE HELD THIS SUMMER, AND THIS SYMPOSIUM ARE PART OF THAT STRATEGY, AND NOW WILL BE CARRIED OUT. WE ARE PLANNING ANOTHER SERIES OF WORKSHOPS AND SPECIAL RESEARCH PROJECTS FOR SPRING, 1980, TO FOLLOW THROUGH

ON THE INITIATIVE OF THIS SYMPOSIUM, AND TO SET THE BASIS FOR A MAJOR NATIONAL CONFERENCE IN JUNE, 1980, TO DISSEMINATE THE GATHERED INFORMATION TO A MORE

GENERAL, INTERESTED COMMUNITY.

THE TASK FORCE IS NOW IMPLEMENTING PLANS TO INSTITUTE A RESOURCES CENTER,

ASSIST IN DEVELOPING INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, PROGRAMS, AND CODES AND REGULATIONS,

ESTABLISH AN OUTREACH PROGRAM PROVIDING SPEAKERS AT MAJOR NATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND BUILD A CONTINUING EFFECTIVE VEHICLE FOR GUARANTEEING LIFE SAFETY. WHAT WE ARE AS A TASK FORCE IS YOU. WE ARE ALL OF US. WE ARE A GROUP OF INTERESTED

INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS, GOVERNMENTAL AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL, WHO BANDED

TOGETHER TO SHARE THE AWARENESS OF THE INCREASING INVOLVEMENT OF THE HANDI- CAPPED COMMUNITY IN OUR SOCIETY, AND THE INCREASED DANGER TO THEM OF UNMET

EMERGENCY NEEDS AND/OR INACCESSIBLE OR INAPPROPRIATE MEANS FOR SAFE EGRESS. WE STARTED WITH AN IDEA, AND IT HAS GROWN.

FOR SEVERAL OF US, TONIGHT GIVES US A REAL SENSE OF PERSONAL JOY - FOR ED LEONARD, EDWINA JUILLET, RALEIGH PINSKEY AND MYSELF, WHO JOINED TOGETHER A YEAR AND

AGO WITH THAT IDEA, AND FOR BUD LEVIN, PHINEAS ANDERSON, JOE WILKES, JAMES DOWLING, AND ARMAND BURGUN, WHOSE INVOLVEMENT EXTENDS FROM THE FIRST MEETING OF THE

9
TASK FORCE. WE'VE EXPANDED, AND MET MONTHLY IN WASHINGTON SINCE THAT MEETING.

I WANT TO EXTEND SPECIAL THANKS TO CLARENCE NICODEMUS, RICHARD KLINKER AND

OTHER MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE WHO CHAIRED THE SIX WORKSHOPS THAT FORMED

THE BASIS FOR THIS SYMPOSIUM. BUD, THANKS FOR YOUR EFFORTS IN MAKING THIS SYMPOSIUM HAPPEN. PHINEAS ANDERSON AND PEGGY SMITH, FOR SETTING UP THE FUNDING FROM DCPA AND USFA FOR THE WORKSHOPS AND SYMPOSIUM. AND I WANT TO EXPRESS ALL OUR THANKS TO THE STAFF OF AIA RESEARCH CORPORATION AND PARTICULARLY TO EARLE KENNETT, WHO NOT ONLY COORDINATED THESE EFFORTS, BUT WHO HAS CONSTANTLY

BEEN THERE WITH HIS SUPPORT. ALSO SPECIAL THANKS TO CLIFF MCLAIN AT DCPA FOR

HIS EFFORTS IN SUPPORTING AND ENLARGING OUR VISION OF THE TASK AT HAND. THE TASK FORCE BELIEVES THAT PROVIDING FOR THE EMERGENCY NEEDS OF THE HANDI- CAPPED IS AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME, AND WE INTEND TO INSURE THAT THERE WILL

BE CREATED AN ENTIRELY NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN IN OUR SOCIETY THAT PROVIDES

A LIFE-SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR NOT ONLY THE HANDICAPPED, BUT THE ABLE-BODIED COMMUNITY AS WELL. THE TASK FORCE SHALL SUPPORT ALL ORGANIZATIONS WHO TAKE AN ACTIVE CONCERN

IN THE EMERGENCY NEEDS OF THE HANDICAPPED, AND WILL HELP TO BRING TOGETHER

ALL GROUPS WORKING IN THIS AREA. A PERSON IN HIS LIFETIME DROPS A FEW SEEDS AND MOVES ON: IF THEY SHOULD TAKE

ROOT, HE HAS SUCCEEDED. WE, ALL OF US, TONIGHT AND THIS WEEK, ARE 30HNNY APPLESEED

PLANTING THAT SEED THAT I'M CERTAIN WILL GROW.

IN A CONVERSATION WITH BUD NELSON AT THE DAIS, HE CONCISELY STATED THAT WHAT

MUST BE OUR THRUST AT THIS CONFERENCE, "TO ENTER EACH WORKSHOP WITH OUR KNOWLEDGE

AND OUR BEST OPINIONS, AND TO BE WILLING TO LET A RESULT OR CONCLUSION COME OUT

OF THE WORKSHOP THAT MAY BE BEYOND OUR EXPERIENCE AND BETTER THAN THE BEST OPINION OF ANY SINGLE MEMBER OF THE GROUP."

I LOOK FORWARD TO MEETING WITH ALL OF YOU OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS, AND INVITE YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THE TASK FORCE GOAL OF WORKING TOGETHER TO CREATE A LIFE- SAFE ENVIRONMENT.

10
KEYNOTE SPEECH JOHN 1. LEFFLER

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR VETERANS ADMINISTRATION

IT IS A PARTICULAR PLEASURE FOR ME TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONFERENCE WITH YOU ON A SUBJECT SO IMPORTANT TO A LARGE PORTION OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. I WISH TO CONGRATULATE EACH OF YOU FOR YOUR DEDICATION, COMMITMENT AND CONCERN

ON BEHALF OF SUCH A WORTHWHILE EFFORT. EACH IS HERE AS A RESULT OF AN INVITATION BASED ON HIS OR HER INDIVIDUAL EXPERTISE AND INTEREST IN LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPE

IT IS A PARTICULAR HONOR TO REPRESENT BOTH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS' AFFAIRS AT THIS CONFERENCE. THEIR COMMITMENT AND SUPPORT FOR THE HANDICAPPED HAVE BEEN UNSWERVING THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.

IN THIS REGARD, I WISH TO READ A LETTER FROM MAX CLELAND, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL TASK FORCE ON LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED:

"I AM SORRY I AM UNABLE TO BE WITH YOU TONIGHT AND LATER, AS YOU PURSUE THE IMPORTANT BUSINESS OF YOUR CONFERENCE ON FIRE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED.

"PRESIDENT CARTER JOINS ME IN WISHING YOU WELL AND HAS ASKED THAT I CONVEY

HIS HOPES THAT YOUR DELIBERATIONS ARE BOTH ENLIGHTENING AND PRODUCTIVE, AND THE CONFERENCE IS A SUCCESS.

"I AM PARTICULARLY GRATEFUL TO YOU FOR DESIGNATING ME YOUR HONORARY CHAIR- MAN. OBVIOUSLY, I HAVE GREAT PERSONAL INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT YOU MEET TO STUDY AND DISCUSS, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING WHAT TRANSPIRES.

"AS ADMINISTRATOR OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND, THUS, A REPRESENTATIVE OF MANY

THOUSANDS OF HANDICAPPED AMERICANS, I ALSO HAVE AN IMPORTANT AND ABIDING PROFESSIONAL INTEREST.

"I WISH YOU GODSPEED AND EXPRESS MY SUPPORT AND THAT OF THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION DURING YOUR CONFERENCE AND IN YOUR SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES". MAX CLELAND, ADMINISTRATOR

THE SUPPORT FOR THE HANDICAPPED CONSTITUENCY HAS RECEIVED INCREASING EMPHASIS FROM THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION SINCE HIS INAUGURATION. IN ADDITION, THE ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES PARTICIPATING IN THIS CONFERENCE DESERVE OUR

RECOGNITION AND THANKS. THEY INCLUDE:

11
THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS RESEARCH CORPORATION

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS - CENTER FOR FIRE RESEARCH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT OF THE HANDICAPPED

NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION ' "

' '

= VETERANS ADMINISTRATION •

'

VA REPRESENTATIVES WHO WILL PARTICIPATE IN THIS CONFERENCE ARE 3IM LEFTER AND GUY CLARK, OFFICE OF CONSTRUCTION: AND BOB ROSENBERRY, DIRECTOR OF OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING, PLANNING AND PROGRAM EVALUATION. THE DEDICATION AND ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF SUCH GROUPS HAS RESULTED IN SIGNI- FICANT CHANGES TAKING PLACE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. THESE INCLUDE DEVELOPING AN APPRECIATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS GROUP WHICH INCLUDES THE BLIND, DEAF, THE IMMOBILE, THE AGED, AND MENTALLY DISABLED. IT ENCOMPASSES APPROXIMATELY ONE IN EVERY SEVEN AMERICANS TO INCLUDE OURSELVES, OUR FAMILIES, FRIENDS, FELLOW- WORKERS AND WOUNDED VETERANS. I FEEL PARTICULARLY FORTUNATE TO WORK WITH THEM BECAUSE OF THEIR ATTITUDES AND DESIRES TO CONTRIBUTE. IN 1968 I WAS HOSPITALIZED

AS A RESULT OF INJURIES SUSTAINED IN VIETNAM. I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE ASSIGNED TO WALTER REED ARMY HOSPITAL AMONG SEVERELY DISABLED SOLDIERS. I WAS PARTICULARLY

IMPRESSED BY THE CAPACITY OF THE PATIENTS TO RECOVER FROM BOTH THE MENTAL AND

PHYSICAL INJURIES SUSTAINED IN COMBAT. WHILE THERE WAS NOT A WHOLE MAN PHYSICALLY

IN THE GROUP, TODAY I KNOW OF NOT ONE OF THE BLIND, AMPUTEES, OR SERIOUSLY INJURED WHO HAS NOT RETURNED TO A PRODUCTIVE, EFFECTIVE LIFE. I'M SURE THERE ARE A FEW WHO HAVE NOT REACHED WHAT THEY CONSIDER THE PINNACLE OF SUCCESS: HOWEVER, EACH HAS REACTED POSITIVELY TO HIS PHYSICAL AND MENTAL PROBLEMS. THAT YEAR TAUGHT ME MUCH ABOUT THE DESIRE THE HANDICAPPED HAVE TO OVERCOME ADVERSITY THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF CREATIVITY, IMAGINATION, AND INNOVATION. I BELIEVE THE SUCCESS OF INDIVIDUALS CAN BE RELATED TO INDIVIDUAL LIFE-STYLES. THERE IS A

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN AMPUTEE AND A CRIPPLE ~ MENTAL ATTITUDE IS ALL-IMPORTANT. EACH MEMBER OF THE HANDICAPPED COMMUNITY ADAPTS TO HIS ENVIRONMENT

BASED ON HIS OWN INDIVIDUAL LIMITATIONS. WE CAN ASSIST THE BLIND, THE AMPUTEE, AND AGED TO PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS. RESULTS OF THIS CONFERENCE CAN HAVE A PROFOUND IMPACT BY PROVIDING A BASE WHICH SUPPORTS

"^HEIR ABILITY TO FUNCTION IN AN OPERA-'IONAL ENVIRONMENT. SUPPORT DOES NOT MEAN

MAJOR EXPENDITURES OF MONEY: THE FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICE OF THE VETERANS

12
ADMINISTRATION DEVELOPED ACCESSIBLE FACILITIES AND OFFICE EQUIPMENT WHICH ARE

LESS COSTLY THAN REGULAR EQUIPMENT. I BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THEIR FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE NATION WE MUST PROVIDE THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH

THE HANDICAPPED CAN EFFECTIVELY OPERATE. EACH OF US CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR CAPABILITY TO OPERATE WITHIN THEIR INDIVIDUAL LIMITATIONS. YOUR INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN ADDRESSING THE DRAFT REPORTS OF SIX RECENT WORKSHOPS (SPONSORED BY THE U.S. FIRE ADMINISTRATION AND CONDUCTED BY THE AIA RESEARCH CORPORATION AND THE TASK FORCE ON LIFE SAFETY AND THE HANDICAPPED) CAN DO MUCH TOWARD ESTABLISHING THE PATH FOR THE FUTURE.

AS YOUR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS EMERGE FROM THIS CONFERENCE, I AM

CONFIDENT THAT THE VA WILL RESPOND VIGOROUSLY TO ASSIST IN THEIR IMPLEMENTATION. THE TASKS FACING US HERE ARE CHALLENGING. THIS CONFERENCE WILL BE SUCCESSFUL

IF IT PROVIDES A BASE LINE THAT WILL SET A SOUND, SENSIBLE COURSE OF ACTION FOR

THE FUTURE. NOT EVERY QUESTION HAS TO BE ANSWERED, BUT THE RIGHT QUESTIONS HAVE

TO BE IDENTIFIED, PRIORITIZED, AND PROGRAMMED FOR FULFILLMENT.

FINALLY, I WISH TO EXPRESS THE VA COMMITMENT IN SUPPORT OF ASSOCIATED PROGRAMS.

SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS ARE TAKING PLACE IN THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION IN SUPPORT OF YOUR EFFORTS. MAJOR EMPHASIS HAS BEEN PLACED ON PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

IN VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION, CONSTRUCTION OF HOSPITALS AND OTHER PATIENT-CARE

FACILITIES, AND IN EMERGENCY AND DISASTER PLANNING ACTIVITIES. I WOULD BE REMISS

IF I FAILED TO MENTION WHAT THE VA IS DOING FOR VETERANS IN OUR REHABILITATIVE MEDICINE AREA FOR THE HANDICAPPED. OUR PROGRAM HAS BEEN STRUCTURED TO PROVIDE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION TECHNIQUES, PROGRESSIVE EXERCISE INSTRUCTIONS AND

FOLLOW-UP IN VOCATIONAL AND SOCIAL SERVICES TO ASSIST EACH INDIVIDUAL TO ACHIEVE AN OPTIMAL LEVEL OF COMMUNITY LIVING. THESE PROGRAMS ARE DEVELOPED TO PROVIDE

SUPPORTIVE ASSISTANCE COVERING THE VAST RANGE OF THE NEEDS FROM FAMILY COUNSELING, DRIVER TRAINING FOR HANDICAPPED PERSONS, EDUCATION, WORK THERAPY, AND

JOB PLACEMENT, TO NAME JUST A FEW.

VA'S WORK PROGRAMS CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE HANDI- CAPPED PERSONS, THE CHRONICALLY ILL, AND THE ELDERLY. INCREASED EMPHASIS HAS

BEEN PLACED ON THE NEED TO DEVELOP MORE PRECISE MEASURES OF QUALITY CARE AND

QUALITY OF LIFE IN COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS.

ADDITIONAL AREAS OF VA EMPHASIS INCLUDE: EMERGENCY AND DISASTER PLANNING CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS

FACILITIES DESIGN TO PROMOTE ACCESSIBILITY

13
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES:

• CONFERENCE - REHABILITATION

e ADMINISTRATOR'S PRIORITIES

» ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD PROGRAMS TO OBTAIN OPTIMAL LEVEL OF COMMUNITY LIVING:

• REHAB MEDICINE

• VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

• EMPLOYMENT YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RESULTS OF THE CONFERENCE CAN PROVE TO BE EXCEPTION- ALLY VALUABLE IN THE FUTURE. THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION, ALONG WITH OTHER

AGENCIES IN THE GOVERNMENT, IS ANXIOUS TO PARTICIPATE WITH YOU IN THESE ACTIVITIES. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE WITH YOU ON THE OPENING DAY OF YOUR CONFERENCE. BECAUSE OF YOUR ATTITUDES, CONCERNS, AND INTERESTS,

THIS CONFERENCE CANNOT FAIL.

14
State of the Art Pursuant to Life Safety in Buildings Made Accessible to the Handicapped

Irwin A. Benjamin

(The status of the promulgation of regulations by model code organizations, state governments and the Federal government where buildings used by the public are to be made accessible to the physically handicapped is presented. The paper also discusses the absence of regulations for providing for the

safety of the handicapped under fire conditions in those buildings made accessible and identifies the

status of various proposals by code and standards writing organizations which will correct this situation. Key words: accessibility; architectural barriers; building codes; egress; elevators; life safety; model

code organizations; NFPA; physically handicapped; standards. ON OCTOBER 18, 1976, THE 9'tTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PASSED PUBLIC LAW 94-5^1, KNOWN AS THE "FEDERAL ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS LAW." SECTION 201 DESCRIBES THIS LAW AS "AN ACT TO INSURE THAT CERTAIN BUILDINGS FINANCED WITH FEDERAL FUNDS ARE SO DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED AS TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PHYSICALLY

HANDICAPPED." THE LAW FURTHER STATES IN PART THAT: THE TERM "BUILDING" MEANS ANY BUILDING OR

FACILITY, THE INTENDED USE FOR WHICH EITHER WILL REQUIRE THAT SUCH BUILDING OR

FACILITY BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, OR MAY RESULT IN THE EMPLOYMENT OR

RESIDENCE THEREIN OF PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS WHICH BUILDING OR FACILITY

IS. . .

(1) TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR ALTERED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES:

(2) TO BE LEASED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY THE UNITED STATES AFTER THE DATE

OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT: OR

(3) TO BE FINANCED IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY A GRANT OR LOAN MADE BY THE

UNITED STATES.

OTHER SECTIONS OF THIS ACT MANDATE THAT THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBE STANDARDS FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND ALTERATION

OF BUILDINGS TO INSURE WHENEVER POSSIBLE THAT PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS

WILL HAVE READY ACCESS TO, AND USE OF, SUCH BUILDINGS. DUE TO THE ENACTMENT OF THIS PUBLIC LAW, THE EFFECTS ON THE BUILDING COMMUNITY

ARE FAR REACHING. IN ESSENCE, EVERY BUILDING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WHICH IS DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FEDERALLY FINANCED OR OTHERWISE FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED MUST

COMPLY.

15
THE REFERENCE STANDARD IN GENERAL USE AT THE PRESENT TIME IS ANSI A 117.1 - 1961, "SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAKING BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES ACCESSIBLE TO, AND USABLE BY, THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED."

IN GENERAL, ANSI A117.1 ADDRESSES SPECIFIC ARCHITECTURAL, SPATIAL AND BUILDING PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR MAKING THE AFFECTED BUILDINGS ACCESSIBLE FOR THE HANDICAPPED AND SUBSEQUENTLY USABLE BY THE HANDICAPPED. THESE CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDE SUCH ITEMS AS:

(1) THE ELIMINATION OF CURBS AND STEPS IN THE ACCESS ROUTES INTO BUILDINGS AT GRADE LEVEL:

(2) PROVISION OF AT LEAST ONE ELEVATOR WITH DOOR OPENING AND CAR OF SUCH SIZE AS TO ACCOMMODATE A WHEELCHAIR AND CONTROLS DESIGNED TO

BE ATTAINABLE AND USABLE BY WHEELCHAIR USERS AND BLIND PERSONS:

(3) TOILET FACILITIES TO BE ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BY PERSONS IN WHEELCHAIRS: AND

(3) SLOPING OF RAMPS SO THAT THEY ARE USABLE BY PERSONS IN WHEELCHAIRS. SUBSEQUENT TO THE ENACTMENT OF THE PUBLIC LAW, THE FOUR SO-CALLED MODEL

BUILDING CODES, LE., (1) THE BASIC BUILDING CODE PROMULGATED BY THE BUILDING

OFFICIALS AND CODE ADMINISTRATORS INTERNATIONAL, INC.: (2) THE STANDARD BUILDING CODE PROMULGATED BY THE SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE CONGRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC.:

(3) THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE PROMULGATED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF

BUILDING OFFICIALS: AND W THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE PROMULGATED BY THE AMERICAN INSURANCE ASSOCIATION APPROVED CODE CHANGES WHICH PROVIDE IN VARYING DEGREES REQUIREMENTS FOR MAKING NEW BUILDINGS ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED

BUT NONE HAVE MADE SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR EVACUATION OF THE HANDICAPPED IN CASE OF EMERGENCIES. THE NATIONAL BUILDING CODE IS PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE AMERICAN INSURANCE

ASSOCIATION. SECTION 300.1.b OF THE 1976 NATIONAL BUILDING CODE ADDRESSES

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE HANDICAPPED AS FOLLOWS: "WHEN BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY THE MUNICIPALITY TO HAVE SPECIAL

PROVISIONS FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS, THOSE BUILDINGS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED TO CONFORM TO — ANSI A1I7.1 -1961." THE OTHER THREE MODEL BUILDING CODES, THE BASIC BUILDING CODE, THE STANDARD

BUILDING CODE AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ARE THE PRODUCTS OF ORGANIZATIONS

16
WHOSE VOTING MEMBERSHIPS ARE BUILDING OFFICIALS. SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS RELATED

TO ACCESSIBILITY TO THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED ARE NOT ADOPTED BY MAKING

REFERENCE TO THE ANSI A117.1: BUT APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS, APPROVED BY THE

MEMBERSHIP, ARE WRITTEN IN DETAIL AND INCORPORATED INTO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE

CODEBOCA'S 1978 BASIC BUILDING CODE, IN SECTION 315.0, SPECIFIES REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE

TO THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AND AGED. THE SECTION STIPULATES THAT THE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO "ALL LEVELS AND AREAS USED BY THE GENERAL

PUBLIC, EMPLOYEES, PERSONS VISITING OR ON THE PREMISES FOR ANY REASON AND SHALL APPLY TO ALL USE GROUPS EXCEPT R-3, R-4 AND T." R-3 AND R-^f USE GROUPS ARE I AND 2 FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCIES AND THE T-USE GROUP INCLUDES TEMPORARY AND

CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES.

SOUTHERN'S 1979 STANDARD BUILDING CODE ADDRESSES "ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE

PHYSICALLY DISABLED AND/OR HANDICAPPED" IN SECTION 508, STATING THAT: "THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SECTION APPLY TO ALL LEVELS AND AREAS OF BUILDINGS AND

STRUCTURES AND TO ALL OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATIONS EXCEPT GROUP H "HAZARDOUS" AND EXCEPT SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURES AND DUPLEXES OF GROUP R "RESIDENTIAL"." SECTION 508 ALSO STATES: "THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION NEED NOT APPLY TO

BUILDINGS OR AREAS WITHIN BUILDINGS WHICH ARE FREQUENTED ONLY BY EMPLOYEES AND

WHERE WORK WITHIN SUCH AREAS CANNOT REASONABLY BE PERFORMED BY THE HANDICAPPED, UNLESS SUCH AREAS LIE IN THE PATH OF EGRESS FROM AREAS NORMALLY

USED BY THE HANDICAPPED."

AND, "BUILDINGS HAVE ACCESSIBILITY AT HABITABLE GRADE LEVELS, WHEN NO PUBLIC ELEVATOR IS PROVIDED, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AT FLOORS ABOVE SUCH LEVELS - -."

ICBO'S 1979 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE HAS THE MAJORITY OF ITS HANDICAPPED

REQUIREMENTS INTERSPERSED THROUGHOUT CHAPTER 33 - "STAIRS, EXITS AND OCCUPANT

LOADS". TABLE NO 33-A PROVIDES IN TABULAR FORM THE IDENTIFICATION OF THOSE USES WHERE ACCESS BY MEANS OF RAMP OR AN ELEVATOR MUST BE PROVIDED FOR THE

PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED.

IT IS OF IMPORTANCE TO NOTE THAT WHILE ALL FOUR OF THE MODEL BUILDING CODES

PERMIT THE USE OF AN ELEVATOR FOR PROVIDING ACCESSIBILITY TO UPPER FLOORS BY THE HANDICAPPED THEY ALL PROHIBIT THE USE OF ELEVATORS AS A REQUIRED MEANS OF

EGRESS AND DO NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY SPECIALIZED EMERGENCY EVACUATION MEANS. AT ITS MEETING IN SAN DIEGO THIS PAST OCTOBER 30 THE FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS

17
RECOMMENDED THE APPROVAL AS REVISED OF A COMPLETE REWRITE OF CHAPTER 33 OF THE

1979 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE. THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE, RECOGNIZING THE PROBLEM

RESULTING IN MAKING UPPER STORIES OF BUIDLINGS ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED THROUGH THE USE OF ELEVATORS AND THEN NOT PERMITTING THE ELEVATORS TO BE USED

AS REQUIRED MEANS OF EGRESS, SUBMITTED A NEW SECTION "33.3(g) BUILDINGS HAVING

ELEVATORS". THIS NEW SECTION READS AS FOLLOWS:

"EVERY BUILDING HAVING AN ELEVATOR REQUIRED BY TABLE NO.

33-A SHALL HAVE EVERY BASEMENT AND EACH STORY ABOVE THE

FIRST STORY DIVIDED INTO NOT LESS THAN TWO COMPARTMENTS

BY NOT LESS THAN A SMOKE AND DRAFT CONTROL PARTITION MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A ONE-HOUR OCCUPANCY

SEPARATION. —EACH SUCH COMPARTMENT SHALL HAVE AN

AREA CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING NOT LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF

THE FLOOR OCCUPANT LOAD OF THE FLOOR UPON WHICH IT IS LOCATED

AT THE RATE OF 15 SQUARE FEET PER OCCUPANT. EACH SUCH COMPARTMENT SHALL CONTAIN A STAIRWAY OR ELEVATOR.

EXCEPTIONS:

(1) STORIES OPENING DIRECTLY TO GRADE:

(2) STORIES HAVING RAMPS TO GRADE:

(3) BASEMENTS USED SOLELY FOR THE SERVICE OF THE BUILDING: W BUILDINGS OR STORIES USED ONLY AS PARKING GARAGES."

THIS REQUIREMENT, IN ESSENCE, PROVIDES AN AREA OF SAFE REFUGE ON EACH FLOOR. THE 10 PERCENT OF THE OCCUPANT LOAD TO BE ACCOMMODATED BY THE AREA(S) OF

SAFE REFUGE IS PREDICATED ON THE STATISTIC THAT 10 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF

THE UNITED STATES ARE CONSIDERED AS PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED. ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD ON THIS PROPOSED CHANGE BY THE ICBO CODE CHANGES COMMITTEE

IN MARCH OR APRIL 1980 AND IF A FINAL RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS MADE TO

THE MEMBERSHIP BY THE CODE CHANGES COMMITTEE, THE ACTION CAN BE INCORPORATED

INTO THE CODE AT ICBO'S ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING IN SEPTEMBER 1980 IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO. NEARLY ALL OF THE 50 STATES HAVE ENACTED IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER LAWS PROVIDING

ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE HANDICAPPED TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS. WHILE MOST OF THE

STATES' LEGISLATION FOR ACCESSIBILITY HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY REFERENCING

ANSI A117.1-1961, THERE ARE SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS. CALIFORNIA, ILLINOIS, MINNESOTA AND NORTH CAROLINA ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF STATES WHICH HAVE DEVELOPED COMPLETE

18
SETS OF REGULATIONS, GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED WITH EXAMPLES OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATIONS. IN GENERAL MOST OF THE LARGER U.S. CITIES ARE

AFFECTED BY STATE REGULATION IN THIS REGARD. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT AS WITH THE MODEL BUILDING CODES, STATE REGULATIONS DO NOT ADDRESS EVACUATION OF THE HANDICAPPED ALTHOUGH THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE ACCESSIBILITY FOR THE

HANDICAPPED. THE LIFE SAFETY CODE COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, IN RECOGNITION OF THE PROBLEMS RESULTING WHEN BUILDINGS ARE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED, ESTABLISHED A SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE HANDICAPPED WITH THE SPECIFIC MANDATE TO INCORPORATE PROVISIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE HANDICAPPED IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. FRANK BOSAK WHO IS HERE, AND I, WERE NAMED AS CO-CHAIRMEN

OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE. THE SUBCOMMITTEE ADOPTED THE PHILOSOPHY THAT WHEN

BUILDINGS ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE MADE ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED THEN

REGULATIONS MUST BE DEVELOPED THAT ADDRESS PROVISIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE HANDICAPPED IN AN EMERGENCY. THIS RESULTED IN A SET OF PROPOSED REVISIONS TO NFPA 101 LIFE SAFETY CODE WHICH PROVIDES FOR "MAINTAINING THE SAFETY OF EGRESS FOR

THE HANDICAPPED." THE TWO KEY ITEMS IN THE PROPOSED REVISIONS ARE:

(1) THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM OF 2 AREAS OF REFUGE ON

EVERY FLOOR BELOW AND ABOVE THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE: AND

(2) A SET OF PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFE USE OF

ELEVATORS, SO THAT THEY MAY BE USED AS A POSSIBLE MEANS OF

EVACUATION. THE SECOND ITEM IS A RADICAL DEPARTURE SINCE ALL EXISTING EGRESS DESIGNS PROHIBIT THE USE OF ELEVATORS TO PROVIDE EGRESS FROM THE FIRE FLOOR UNDER EMERGENCY

CONDITIONS. THE SPECIFIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SAFE USE OF ELEVATORS ARE

PROPOSED IN THE APPENDIX OF NFPA 101. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO NFPA 101, WHICH WERE RECENTLY BALLOTED, AND WILL APPEAR FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AS THE PROPOSED CHANGES OF THE COMMITTEE ARE:

5-12* SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE HANDICAPPED

5-12.1 EVERY NEW BUILDING HAVING A PASSENGER ELEVATOR SHALL HAVE EVERY FLOOR

BELOW THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE AND EVERY STORY SERVED BY SUCH ELEVATOR, EXCEPT THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE, DIVIDED INTO NOT LESS THAN TWO (2) COMPARTMENTS BY NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION. THE SMALLER

OF THE COMPARTMENTED AREAS SHALL BE OF SIZE TO ACCOMMODATE 20% OF THE POPULATION OF THE FLOOR AT THE RATE OF 30 SQ. FT . GROSS AREA PER PERSON. EACH

SUCH COMPARTMENT SHALL CONTAIN A STAIRWAY OR ELEVATOR.

19
STORIES OPENING DIRECTLY TO GRADE.

STORIES HAVING RAMPS TO GRADE.

STORIES USED SOLELY FOR THE SERVICE OF THE BUILDING. FLOORS OR STORIES USED ONLY AS PARKING GARAGES. ELEVATORS MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF THE AREA OF REFUGE IF THEY ARE

DESIGNED TO PROVIDE REASONABLY SAFE EGRESS FROM THE BUILDING UNDER FIRE CONDITIONS. EXCEPTION 2 TO SECTION 7. EXCEPTION 2: IN NEW BUILDINGS, WHERE ACCESS FOR THE HANDICAPPED IS PROVIDED

IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 5-12, DESIGNATED ELEVATORS MAY BE USED FOR EXITING TO THE LEVEL OF EXIT DISCHARGE OR TRANSFER

FLOOR. WHERE THIS PROVISION IS UTILIZED, THE ELEVATORS SHALL NOT BE USED FOR COMPUTING REQUIRED EXIT WIDTH. THE PROPOSED REVISIONS FOR THE USE OF ELEVATORS CONTAIN SOME REQUIREMENTS WHICH

WILL NECESSITATE REVISIONS IN OTHER NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STANDARDS, SUCH AS THE NATIONAL ELEVATOR CODE ANSI A17.1. THE DESIGN CRITERIA CONTAINED IN THE APPENDIX

OF THE LIFE SAFETY CODE ARE SUGGESTED PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND AS SUCH ARE

READILY SUSCEPTIBLE TO EQUIVALENCY DETERMINATIONS.

IN SUMMATION, THE RECENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE COMMITTEE ON SAFETY TO LIFE TO

PROVIDE FOR EMERGENCY EXITING OF THE HANDICAPPED ARE THE FIRST PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAFE USE OF ELEVATORS AS AN ALTERNATE TO OTHER MEANS OF SAFETY.

EXISTING PUBLIC LAWS, STATE AND MUNICIPAL LAWS, AND BUILDING CODES HAVE TO DATE ONLY CONCERNED THEMSELVES WITH MAKING BUILDINGS ACCESSIBLE TO THE HANDICAPPED AND WILL HAVE TO BE AMPLIFIED TO PROVIDE FOR SAFE EMERGENCY EVACUATION.

EXCEPTION 1: EXCEPTION 2: EXCEPTION 3: EXCEPTION ^: EXCEPTION 5:

20
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held at The National Bureau of Standards 26-29 November 1979 OVERVIEW PANEL

7 Decennber 1979

1. Scope A common workaday premise that appeared among the panels was that all persons have an

equal right to life safety in a fire emergency.

Operating under this premise, the panels developed methodologies and strategies necessary to establish an environment in which

people with handicaps can cope with a fire threat

to life safety. There was a pervading recognition of the need for total systems concepts in the solution of the life safety problems faced by handicapped

persons in fires. All the committees recognized

that there was no single unique solution to the problem and that protection of handicapped

persons in fire emergencies requires an inter- active approach involving interrelationships among: the building (including construction, use, protection devices and systems); the people housed in the building (both able-bodied and

handicapped); the management of the building; the various institutions; (including government

and codes and standards bodies) and the

specialized services that support the building

(including fire departments and rescue services). Physical characteristics of the building and

its protection system are prime determinants of the size and intensity of the fire threat and the

provision of facilities to enable handicapped and

other persons to escape from hazard to an area

of safety. Various building systems interrelate with the building occupants to provide essential functions of communicating the presence of a

threat, the nature of such a threat, and any

additional information or directions they need in order to act for their own safety or to assist others. Of particular concern among the panels

was the provision of egress means and establishing safe areas of refuge.

In order for the installed systems to function

effectively in providing safety it is necessary for each individual to be aware, understand and to take those actions which they are capable of to provide for their own safety as well as the safety

of others.

2. Problems and Issues The preceding applies to any building situation whether or not handicapped persons are

involved. Specific problems and issues raised by

the panels that relate to accommodating and

fulfilling the objective of enabling the handicapped to cope with and survive fire threats include the following.

2.1 Lack of Data A major problem in applying the current

state-of-the-art technology to the problems of the handicapped occurs due

to lack of data or information on:

21.1 The actual capabilities and

limitations of handicapped

persons, including functional

characteristics, that would be needed to cope with fire or for which compensating features

or devices would be required.

2.1.2. The number and distribution of handicapped persons likely to be found in buildines to the degree necessary to determine

21
the size, and auantitv of protective features, spaces, or devices that are needed.

2.1.3. Factual data, histories, and

other information on both the manner in which handicapped

persons have been harmed and

the manner in which they have managed to cope with fire. 2AA. Either the history or rational expectations related to the manner in which the efforts of

a mixed population of handi- capped and able-bodied persons interact with each other

or their situational environ- ment in manners that assist or impede the safety of all in a

fire situation.

2.2 Building Codes

The occupancy classifications traditionally used in building codes do not

fully account for the occupants' degree

of familiarity with the facility or the extent of interrelationships among the occupants. A better understanding of the relationships between occupants and between the occupants and building elements is necessary for responsive

fire safety codes.

2.3 Communications Systems A need for requirements for emergency

communications systems for buildings occupants and/or fire emergency

service or other persons that will assist them was consistently stated as a problem. 2A Fire Emergency Plans The lack of evacuation plans and drills organized to address the problems and

needs of the handicapped was addressed

by several panels.

2.5 Education and Training Several panels were concerned over the

lack of adequate education and training programs for professionals and the

public (including handicapped people). The intent of these programs would be

to create awareness of the special needs of the handicapped in fire emersencies and to develop an increased

capability to deal with these needs.

3 3. Recommendations

The above issues were treated by the indivi- dual panels as related to their specific charge. They made extensive recommendations relevant

to: A. Involvement of handicapped persons

in all phases of development, imple- mentation, and evaluation of all elements of fire safety.

B. Systems and devices which would

allow communications relative to

level of each and available safeguards, fire emergency notification, provisions of instructions and infor- mation and summoning assistance. C. Evacuation routes and refuge areas

relative to the prompt removal of all persons from areas of immediate danger and eventual removal to areas of permanent safety, including the development of important concepts

involving the degree of redundancy of egress paths and staging areas. D. Pre-planning as relates to the indivi- dual, the management fire services and other related organizations.

E. Education and training, particularly

as it relates to instructional manuals

and background materials for both

the individual handicapped persons, and for those who will be called upon

to help or aid them.

F. Design, maintenance, and upkeep of both the buildings, and their protection systems and devices; and of related educational awareness and

training programs.

G. Investigations, research, and information-generating activities to provide

a better data base for future

planning, decisions, and actions. H. Systems or approaches to permit the widest possible range of flexibility, cost control and alternative approaches in achieving fire safety

objectives.

I. Implementation recommendations

addressed to Federal, state and local governments; code bodies; facility owners and managers; organizations 22
for the handicapped; manufacturers;

fire departments and other emergency organizations; and individual

citizens, both able-bodied and handi- capped.

23
OVERVIEW PANEL CHAIRMAN

Harold E. Nelson Head, Design Concepts Research

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 2023^^ 301-921-3175 VICE CHAIRMAN

:iasper S. Hawkins, FAIA

Hawkins, Lindsey, Wilson, Architects

111 E. Camelback Road

Phoenix, Arizona 85012 602-265-4515 RECORDER

Donald Geis

Project Manager AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-785-7800

Eunice Fiorito Rehabilitation Services Administration Department of HEW

330 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 202-245-3186

Jonas Morehart, P.E. HEW North Building, Room 4709

330 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 202-245-2170 3ames Parker

Chief, Criteria and Research Branch

Office of Construction Management

General Services Administration

19th and I Street, N.W., Room 3306

Washington, D.C. 20405

202-566-0714

3.3. Persensky Center for Consumer Product Technology

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3691

24
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held at The National Bureau of Standards 26-29 November 1979 PANEL ON ALARM SYSTEMS

30 November 1979

1. Introduction The charge before the panel on alarm systems was concentrated on the psychological and physical aspects of alerting and informing handicapped individuals and others during fire emergencies. Although the term "alarm systems" has specialized connotations for those

in the field, the panel addressed in its discussions

all types of alarms, ranging from personal devices to automatic, self-contained systems for multi-storied buildings. The panel concentrated

primarily on the physical aspects of alerting and

informing handicapped individuals and others in the building upon whom the handicapped indivi- duals would likely rely for assistance because

these are the "most readily addressed through code revision". Psychological aspects cf alarms were discussed in connection with many of the panel findings; the panel recommended further study in the area of perception of different types

of alarms.

Early in panel deliberations, the following functions of alarm systems v/ere identified:

1. Initiation and detection (automatic and manual);

2. Notification

3. Communication (supplementary);

if. Auxiliary function (e.g., recapture

of elevators, shutting fans, closing

fire doors). The panel felt that only notification and supplemientary communication were within its purview.

Initial notification signals were assumed by the panel to carry the implicit message "evacuate

immediately." Supplementary communications

are any messages or instructions beyond immediate evacuation. The panel first attempted to define the populations alarm systems should be expected to alert and inform. Who is it that alarm systems must reach? The panel initially felt that alarms

should have the capability of notifying all occupants of any particular occupancy type. By the end of the first day of discussion this was revised

to "every person who is expected to take independent action in a fire emergency." The basic premises of the definition agreed on can be

described briefly as follows:

1) No alarm system can be expected to reach every occupant of a building. There will always be a few occupants who, due to some

incapacity to receive and understand the

fire alarm signal (e.g., deep sleep, inebriation, distance from signals, drugs) cannot be

alerted by any combination of audible, visual or tactile signals.

2) Of those that can be reached, not all need to or should be. For example, a hospital floor

far removed from the fire floor and occupied by non-mobile patients may not have to be notified; the potential adverse psychological effects may outweigh the benefits of notifying the entire hospital of the existence

of a fire. The groups who would not be

notified should be determined by occupancy

type and code guidelines. After the initial alert has been

accomplished, there are many problems related to providing adequate information on evacuation or movement to areas of refuge to both handicapped and able-bodied occupants of a building. These

25
problems are inextricably bound to conditions

related to fire safety education, previous emergency training and experience, the design of the building—in particular, corridors, doors, refuge

areas, elevators and stairwells—and many other

factors. In dealing with these problems the panel

felt that comprehensive, coordinated, and simul- taneous efforts must be made by all related

disciplines and fields to overcome unnecessary

duplication and excessive cost in order to maxi- mize and ensure the quality of services responsive to the needs of the handicapped and the

able-bodied.

This paper presents, first, the problem areas

identified at the beginning of the panel meeting. These are followed by the panel's findings and

observations regarding specific needs and consi- derations related to different types of

disabilities and occupancy types. The paper

concludes with findings and recommendations

representing the panel's suggestions on realistic courses of action.

2. Problem Areas

Within the areas of notification and supple- mentary communication the following functions were identified: o Alerting the occupants of the building, the management, and the fire service of the existence of a fire; o Giving guidance for evacuating the affected area; o Calling for help by the handicapped

individual to the management and/or

fire service personnel; o Providing additional information or guidance to the occupants by building management or fire service personnel. These functions can be performed by: o Appropriate alarm systems (including smoke detectors, manual and automatic

notification systems, zoned communication systems, pre-recorded messages);

o Signage and other exit identification; o Personal alarm and communication devices; o Fire service equipment;

o Assistance from other occupants. These identified functions provided a structure

for identifying problem areas.

The panel analyzed all observations, problem areas, and recommendations related to alarms systems identified by all six of the Workshops on Life Safety and the Handicapped.

Particular attention was given to the problem

areas identified by Workshops 2 and 6. Specific problem areas identified by the panel were:

1. The steady non-coded signal

inhibits communication between

building occupants.

2. Any audible system may disorient the blind who depend on normal

building noises for navigation.

3. Current audible alarms are nondirectional.

4. There may be a need for both

audible and visual signals above

exits.

5. Present directional signs are in- tended for the sighted and

English-reading.

6. The existence of obstructions to safe egress is not communicated

to the visually-impaired and the

blind by present alarm systems.

3. Specific Needs and Considerations The panel then turned its attention to identifying the alarm needs of persons with

certain handicaps in the building environment. It was pointed out that it is useful to divide the

total built environment into four subgroups:

living, learning, working, socializing. It was

determined that this type of classification closely parallels the occupancy classification used by the building codes, and it was decided to

utilize the product-oriented matrices developed

by Workshop 6 for analysis of this problem area. The nine occupancy groups were listed along the

top in order approximating the groups comprising

the built environment. The vertical divisions of the matrix as listed in Figure 2, Workshop 6, were retained for identifying disability types. The completed matrix as prepared by this panel

for the initial notification of a fire emergency in the building is given in Figure 1. As indicated

earlier, it had been decided that the fire alerting

signal is useful only to the person who is capable

of self-help in evacuation (or relocation), and

Figure 1, thus, is limited to notification of all persons who are expected to take independent

action in a fire emergency. Furthermore, it was assumed that products or systems currently being

utilized for fire alarm purposes suit the needs of the able-bodied; identification of general short- 26
comings in certain applications was considered beyond the scope of this conference.

Plus signs (+) indicate that either the pro- ducts now being used in that occupancy group are acceptable for the type of disability indicated or that a suitable product is available and acceptable

for the purposes. A check mark (/) indicates that

suitable products for alerting persons with this type of handicap are available but there is a need

for standardization and/or more work to make

them fully acceptable. A minus sign (-) was to be

used if there is no product currently available to

satisfy (as is or modified) the needs of persons with that type of disability, but no such deficiency was identified. For purposes of fire alerting, a check mark

was used in Figure 1 to indicate that while there

are a variety of methods available to alert the hearing-impaired, there has been insufficient standardization. The second matrix (Figure 2) was used to analyze systems of providing supplementary infor- mation which a person might need in order to reach a place of safety. Ordinarily, exit signs and

directional signs are the most common ways of imparting this guidance. For three types of disabilities - movementimpaired, strength-impaired and life-support- equipment-hindered - existing by means of stair- ways may be impractical, and these persons may

have to be directed to a place of refuge or other

location. The development of a new, standardized

sign for directing people to the place of refuge appears to satisfy the need.

In only a few instances was it believed that those with severe vision handicaps would have

difficulty in locating exits. Where these persons

are familiar with their surroundings and even in transient residential situations, the blind can be expected to need no extraordinary guidance. However, in certain complex situations, such as large stores, factories, warehouses, restaurants,

theaters, etc., additional guidance may have to be

provided. Products which can be used for or adapted to this need include tactile tapes and

signs, audible or homing devices at exits, and

"talking lights" (referred to in the Workshop 6 paper). In addition, voice instructions may be

practical to have non-handicapped assist the blind. Another identified need for products was in the area of one-way and two-way communication,

personalized to the specific capabilities and needs

of the individual. Products now available which

appear to be capable of satisfying this need are

tactile alarm watches triggered by the fire alarm

system, digital transmitters in each room trig- gered by hand-held devices, vibrators placed under

beds, portable radios, pagers, directional signal

transmitters, etc.

^. Findings and Recommendations

The following are the findings and recommendations arrived at by the panel. Although

cost factors were considered, the panel recom- mends cost benefit analysis of the different alarm strategies suggested.

1. Where a fire alarm system is required, every person who is expected to take independent action in a fire emergency

should be alerted by a distinctive signal. For most persons, either an audible or a

visual signal is satisfactory. Using both

types of signals together may provide only

slight additional coverage. Personalized

signals utilizing any of the five senses may

be the most suitable for those not able to be alerted by the audible or visual signals being used in the building. Notes:

a. It is intended that the fire evacuation

signal need not be received by those who cannot take independent action in a fire emergency. It may be desirable

to communicate the nature and extent

of the emergency to these individuals.

b. Where persons with hearing disabilities are in rooms where they can be alerted by others, no special alerting devices

are needed.

2. Persons having been alerted by the distinctive

fire alarm signal are assumed to know that they should evacuate the building. The

handicapped may be obliged to remain in place and should have means to communicate

that location to firefighters, or they may

have to evacuate or relocate to a designated

place of refuge. The place of refuge should have standardized distinctive visual identifi- cation and two-way communication.

3. Where directions are needed to locate the

exits or places of refuge, a combination of methods can be used to inform all persons

of the locations. Suitable methods include signage with and without tactile surfaces, alarm systems with voice capabilities, public address systems meeting the specialized requirements of fire alarm systems, per- sonalized instruction modules, guidance from others, directional lights, etc.

'j. Present exit signs have limited effective- ness under marginal conditions. Strobe 27
lights near the floor and clear red or green

lights have been identified as being more

visible.* When pulsed together with an

audible signal upon initiation of the fire alarm system, more effective guidance may

be given to all persons. This concept should be investigated, (see also II)

5. Most people who have a need to use fire alarm boxes to notify others of a fire emergency have access to those now in use, provided they are mounted not over 5^

inches above the floor. Special accommodations for operation of the boxes by the visually-handicapped are not required, but standardizing the shape, color, texture, operation, and location of fire alarm boxes

should be considered. The color orange is recommended for fire alarm boxes, based on

studies indicating that orange is the last color that remains distinctive as the visually-impaired approach total blindness.

6. Development is needed for a personalized emergency call device with homing capabilities for those who may not be in a fixed

location in a builidng and who are unable to use normal communication facilities.

7. In low-rise residential buildings, an audible

or visual signal initiated by the person in distress is desirable on the outside to alert neighbors to the need for emergency assis- tance. An important element in such an arrangement would be prior planning with

neighbors. In other residential buildings, enunciated signals are desirable for the same purpose.

8. In transient residential occupancies, the handicapped should be informed on actions

to be taken in a fire emergency. (The means

for effectively accomplishing this were

considered to be beyond the scope of this panel.)

9. Visual, audible, and tactile signals should be

simplified and standardized.

10. Products used for fire alerting and conveyance of information should conform

to minimum acceptance criteria.

Human Engineering Considerations in Exiting from Secure Spaces, Report No. 7762-2. prepared

for the U.S. Navy Civil Engineering Laboratory by Gage Babcock and Associates, March 1978.

11. Continuous audible fire alarm signals limit interpersonal communication during a fire emergency, may be distracting, and may

cause adverse psychological and behavioral

responses. The desirability and feasibility of intermittent audible signals should be

investigated, as should the placement of audible signals at exits to guide the visually handicapped and others under poor

visibility conditions, (see also ^)

12. The panel endorses recommendations I and

6 of Workshop 6. Recommendation I calls for the development of a rehabilitation engineering products catalog focusing on

those products that would enhance life safety. Recommendation 6 calls for continued and increased public education at all levels on the need for life safety products and in training in product use.

28
Figure 1. Notification of Buiiding Occupants

xupancy 'pe &

2

Fami 6

jstrial \ Ot^ T3

Disability Type \

Residenti; Residenti. Institutiot Education Business

Mercantilf Factory/li Storage High

Hazc

Assembly

1. Movement + + + + + + + + + +

2. Manipulation + + + + + + + + + +

3. Hearing / / / / / / / / / / 4. Vision + + + + + + + + + +

5. Voice + + + + + + + + + +

6. Mental + + + + + + + + + +

7. Life Support + + + + + + + + + +

8. Emotional + + + + + + + + +

9. Hidden + + + + + + + +

10. Size + + + + + + + + + +

11. Strengtin + + + + + + + +

Key

+ = Products Available

/ = Product Development or Standardization Needed

29
Figure 2. Supplementary Communication

/

Occupancy /

Type

jsidential 1

&

2

5sidential

Other

Stitutional Jucational •0.

ercantile

ictory/lndustrial

orage gh

Hazard >

E

DC CE d X

/ / / j / / / 2. Manipulation + + + + + +

3. Hearing + + + + + +

4. Vision + + + + + / / / + / 5. Voice + + + + + + + + + +

6. Mental + + + + + + + +

7. Life Support + / + + / / / / / / 8. Emotional + + + + + + + + + +

9. Hidden + + + + + + + + + +

10. Size + + + + + + + + +

11. Strength + / + / / / / /

J I III

Key

+ = Products or Systems Available

/ = Development or Standardization Needed

30
PANEL ON ALARM SYSTEMS CHAIRMAN

Bert M. Cohn

Gage-Babcock 6a Associates

135 Addison

Elmhurst, Ulinois 60126

312-530-1^^94 VICE CHAIRMAN

Donald Boyer Handicap Village P.O. Box V

Clear Lake, Iowa 50428

515-357-5277 RECORDER

Sharon Machida AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-785-7834

Irving Mande

Edwards Co., Inc. 90 Connecticut Avenue

Norwalk, Connecticut 06856

203-838-8441 Murvan M. Maxwell, FAIA

Maxwell & LeBreton Architects 320 Board of Trade Place

Suite 206 New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 504-525-9401

Ashot P. Mnatzakanian BDD/RSA

Department of HEW

Switzler Bldg., Rooom 3419 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 202-245-0779

Richard Bright Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3387

Williann Tangye, P.E. Southern Building Code Congress

900 Montclair Road

Birmingham, Alabama 35215

205-591-1853 James Dowling The American Institute of Architects

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-785-7256 Ken Frese

Office of the State Fire Marshal

Suite 319, Landmark Towers

101 South Whiting Street Alexandria, Virginia 22304

3erry Zerdy Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Building #233, Room A-117 Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3783

Fred Jameson

Fire Education Specialist Las Vegas Fire Department

400 East Stewart Avenue

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 702-386-6361

Robert Lynch, FAIA

Consultant in Barrier-Free Design 8325 Via de Encanto

Scottsdale, Arizona 85258

602-998-2179

31
CLARENCE L. NIOCDEMJS

Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant 625 Doyle Lane

Dixon, California 95620

(916) 678-3661 Decarber 30, 1979

ref : Conference on Fire

Safety for the

Handicapped, NovDr. Bernard Levin eniber 26 - 29, 1979. United States Department

of Ckannerce National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234 Dear Dr. Levin: Below are my cooments on the report of the PANEL CN ALARM SYSIEMS. There are three major areas of the Panel findings that I feel need

clarification

:

1. . . ."fire evacuation signal need not be received by those vibo cannot take independent action." (ref. item 1. page 3 and 4 and discussion, bottan page 6. ) *

I take strong exception to the assumption that csily those who are "expected to take independent action" need be alerted. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the statonent, but I cannot conceive of a

situation in \\tdch I would choose not to be given as much information, as many alternatives and as much time as possible in facing a fire related oneig^cy, whether or not I could take independent

action. A clarification of this point is necessary! Hae opportunity of choice must be given to each and all persons.

2. T.. "products or systons currently being utilized for fire alarm purposes suit the needs of the able-bodied;..." (ref. bottan page

6.) An exception on this point appears to be minor on the surface, but in reality it strikes at the very heart of the issue involved. Through the process of analyzing and itemizing the functional tasks required during a building fire emei^ency (for the purposes of describing the functional assistance needed by disabled persons)

,

it has becone clear to me that the so called "able-bodied" are actually scarce in a fire and anoke involved environmoit. anoke reduces vision; carbon monoxide reduces physical capacity; noise and cannotion reduces logical thought and orientation; anixiety reduces understanding of simple instructions; minor injury reduces

physical ability. Therefore, current products do not meet the needs of the ablebodied in a real anergency. We cannot make assumptions to the contrary in this r^ard because it leads to a false conclusion

*Page numbers referred to are those of the draft report. Quotation is on Page 27 of this report.

32
that all of OUT efforts are aimed at "providing for needs of the

few". In reality, we are clearly just now considering the needs of the able-bodied as well as the disabled person.

3. "Technology is available, so a product cannot be far behind." Although this is not a direct quote frcjn this Panel's report, it is often expressed and I feel that it is appropriately addressed

here vihere the discxission of needed products takes place. Because technology exists for the development of products for alarm systecas, personal devices etc. , it cannot be assumed that they will be developed. Products imst go through a considerable number of stages before being delivered to the market

:

1. The initiation of this effort takes "up front" monies v^ich

can be highly specvilative and therefore hard to find and

justify.

2. Development of performance criteria or specifications. These

are the guidelines for the product's performance and agree- ment or consensus is difficult to achieve.

3. Research and Developnent. Prototype design, test, redesign

to obtain a reliable product that performs as specifications

require.

4. Prototype manufacture for field test wMch may lead to mass

production.

5. Market surveys, financing, advertizii^, etc.

6. Education and training in use which may lead to acceptance by users. All this must occur before it can be assumed that the product is

available. Therefore, vfcen discussing the availability of products based on available technology, it must be borne in mind that

a great deal of time , effort and money must be expended before the transfer is realized. We must not be "lulled" into non-action because of the mere availability of technology.

Clarence L. Nicodonus

Ikfember of the Board, National Task Force on Life Safety and

the Handicapped.

CLN-.sgo

33
NOTES

3ii-
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held at The National Bureau of Standards

26-29 November 1979 PANEL ON EGRESS

29 November 1979

1. Scope and Basic Premises The Panel on Egress concentrated on the

behavioral and physical aspects of moving handi- capped people from areas of danger to areas of safety. The Panel considered both horizontal movement on a single level or builidng story and

vertical movement between levels. The Panel found it had insufficient time to give detailed consideration to a major problemretrofitting existing buildings. It was recognized

that to some extent this is part of the larger problem of retrofitting buildings to be accessible

to handicapped people in the first place. Nor was time available to consider the important behavioral issue of emergency egress from private homes. Handicapped people's

special concerns for their loved ones can be expected to influence their risk-taking and

decision-making behavior and, thus, their egress

time. The Panel hopes that these and related matters will receive adequate attention in other forums. Two fundamental premises guided the

Panel's deliberations: o Buildings that are required to be

accessible to handicapped people should

also provide them with safety during

fire emergencies.

0 The level of safety provided handi- capped people should equal, as nearly as

possible, that provided able-bodied

people.

2. Fire Data Needs

Early in the course of the Panel's discussions it was recognized that information on handicapped people's experiences in fire emergencies in the past is not readily available. This

sort of information exists, but is buried in the much larger body of data on able-bodied people. Such information, if compiled, would help determine the most important safety issues to investigate and the areas most likely to offer cost-effective fire-safety investments. However, while calling for the compilation of such

data the Panel noted, first, that available research indicates that in some situations data from fire drills and other simulated situations are useful indicators of behavior in actual fire emergencies. Second, the Panel stressed that the lack of complete information of this sort should not impede implementation of safety features that available information indicates will be effective. We should, in other words, move to prevent future fire disasters now instead of waiting for their occurrence to confirm other- wise well-grounded theories about their

possibility.

3. Behavioral Aspects of Egress The Panel's confidence in our ability to act now to improve fire safety for handicapped

people is based on the useful, if preliminary, behavioral research results presently available. This research, sponsored by the National Bureau

of Standards, the National Research Council of Canada, the National Fire Prevention and

Control Administration, and others, offers 35
valuable information—some of it counter-intui- tive—on protecting both able-bodied and handi- capped people. The idea that data on able-bodied people can

be of use in protecting handicapped people may

itself sound counter-intuitive. However, many of the recommendations in this Panel's and the other panel's reports are directed at compensating for people's handicaps, leaving them, for

fire safety purposes, "able-bodied." Providing

fire-safe elevators for people in wheelchairs or

visual alarms for deaf people, for instance, permits safety planners to focus on other emergency needs during a fire, needs that handi- capped and able-bodied people share alike. The available behavioral data on fire safety- -some published and some not—need to be dis- seminated, studied, and discussed much more

widely than they have been to date. The

following examples suggest their range and

potential value:

o People in fire emergencies tend to use

egress routes with which they they are

familiar. This suggests that building designs and management plans should work to encourage occupants to use

fire-safe egress routes as a matter of course. Daily stair usage has been

found to increase significantly for instance, when stairwells are well-lit and attractively decorated.

o People with cognitive disabilities such

as those associated with mental

retardation and senility are able to learn and remember the location of

stairs more easily if the stairwell doors they pass on a daily basis have vision panels that, by allowing a view of the

stairs, reinforce the message of often

disregarded "EXIT" signs. o In many fire emergencies the majority

of time elapsed between the sounding of an alarm and escape is spent inter- preting the situation and deciding what

to do. This not only confounds efforts

to base fire-safety codes and standards on actual travel times but indicates the importance of providing effective, unambiguous alarms and pre-ignition egress instructions. o Studies of office towers and public assembly places indicate that people with a variety of handicapping

conditions can evacuate down or up

stairs along with everyone else without impeding overall egress significantly, although some need assistance (e.g.,

those in wheelchairs being carried out by others). Clearly, these and other results from the research community offer much of value to fire- safety planning.

i^-. Physical Barriers to Egress

It is reasonable to expect that providing handicapped people barrier-free access to buildings will go a long way to enabling them to egress from dangerous areas during a fire emergency. The Panel determined that, with important exceptions, this is the case. For this reason the Panel welcomes the American

National Standards Institute's recent revision of

its 1961 standard. Specifications for Making

Buildings and Facilities Accessible to, and Usable

by, the Physically Handicapped (ANSI All 7.1- 1961). The revised standard provided detailed guidance on the state-of-the-art of barrier-free

design, and should be considered carefully by

designers, facility owners and administrators,

regulators, and codes and standards officials. The Panel noted several areas in which the new ANSI standard either conflicts with existing

building and life-safety codes, goes beyond them,

or does not itself appear to provide optimal life- safety solutions. The following examples are among those that came to the Panel's attention. o Vision panels in doors, as discussed in the previous section, are useful for stairwell doors and all other doors where privacy, for example, is unnecessary. (Several Panel members

noted that vision panels are also of value to able-bodied people, both in fire emergencies and under normal

circumstances.)

o The revised ANSI standard calls for doors that open in response to no more

than S'A lbs. of pressure to enable weakened people or those with limited coordination to use doors easily. It is widely believed, however, that achieving this goal for fire doors would

decrease sharply their ability to self- close and self-latch; as a result, the ANSI standard specifically exempts

fire doors. Efforts should be continued

to develop fire doors and hardware

with opening and closing characteristics that ensure they can be operated by handicapped people but

still serve their purpose as fire doors. o Codes and standards should provide a

32" clear egress path for wheelchairs through doors as recommended by the new ANSI standard. Doorways with

multiple leaves can achieve this with 36
any single active door leaf. o Egress ramps for use by handicapped

people should meet the 1:12 slope recommended by ANSI.

0 The ANSI corridor-width standard might be studied to evaluate the need

for increasing corridor-width,

especially in dead-end corridors, to 48"

to enable wheelchairs to turn around

easily. The smaller width can be workable under normal circumstances because people in wheelchairs can turn

into doorways off a corridor to gain room to turn around. In a fire the doorway and time to get to it may not be available. o Dead-end corridors can rob people not

familiar with the building's layout, both the able-bodied and the handi- capped, of valuable egress time trying

to locate an exit. o Specifications should be more fully developed to minimize traction and

trip hazards on floors, ramps, and

stairs. o The new ANSI standard for stair design does not apply if an elevator or other

accessible mechanism for vertical movement is available. Because using

stairs may be necessary in a fire emergency for both able-bodied people "handicapped" by stress and for people with non-ambulatory handicaps, the ANSI standard should apply to all stairs. These and other features of the new ANSI

standard and building and life-safety codes

require careful detailed examination to ensure maximum safety in fire emergencies.

5. Elevators in Fire Emergencies and Other

Egress Options As stated in the beginning of this report, the level of fire safety accorded handicapped

people should, as nearly as possible, equal that accorded able-bodied people. A basic premise of

traditional fire-safety planning has been the importance of providing two egress routes to avoid entrapping occupants in a dangerous area if the fire makes one of the routes unusable. The new ANSI All 7.1 standard discussed above, however, calls for only one accessible route to avoid what are considered excessive costs and design

features. Moreover, the ANSI standard indicates that this single means of vertical movement can

be provided by elevators, the use of which has

traditionally been avoided in fire emergencies. How can this dilemma be resolved? The Panel resolved that redundancy ~ at

least two means of egress ~ should nevertheless be provided for handicapped people. The first means should be the accessible route called for by ANSI, and if it includes elevators they should be fire-safe, as discussed below. The second means of egress can take one of several forms, depending on the nature and occupancy of the

building: o Accessible refuge areas can be pro- vided on each level to make vertical movement unnecessary. The Panel on Refuge presents a detailed discussion

of this subject. o Assistance plans such as buddy-system,

fire wardens, and other pre-planned management options can be developed

in which able-bodied people help handicapped people use stairs and

other non-accessible egress routes. Such plans should be evaluated very

closely, however, to ensure their effectiveness. Buddy systems, for example, can break down if the able- bodied team member is injured, trapped in an area of refuge on another level, or otherwise

unavailable. o A second egress route using outdoor ramps or other barrier-free means of vertical movement can be provided. In some buildings (e.g., one-or twostories) this will be a simple and

effective method of providing redun- dant egress.

Finally, recent changes in elevator system

design suggest that elevators can be useful mechanisms for vertical egress in fires. To use elevators for this purpose safely it is necessary

that: o the elevator meets ANSI A117.I re- quirements for basic accessibility; o the waiting area is accessible and safe

for both the time needed to place the

elevator into an emergency operating mode and the time needed to pick up

all those waiting to be moved;

o the cab and shaft are protected during

vertical travel; and

o the discharge level provides safe, accessible egress from the elevator.

37
A substantial majority of the Panel

believes that these goals can be met by existing technology and that adequate management plans can be devised to implement them. On the following pages appear copies of several attempts to address this issue: 1) a proposed

standard for such elevator egress presently being considered by the Committee on Safety of Life

of the National Fire Protection Association, 2) a March 1977 bulletin on the subject issued by the General Services Administration, and 3) a 1978 ANSI standard on the subject.

References

Beri, W.G. d Haipin, B.M. Human Fatalities from Unwanted Fires. National Bureau of Standards, NBS-GCR-79-168, December 1978. Stahl, Fred I., "Research on Design Standards for Building Access and Egress," Journal of Archi- tectural Research , 7/2, August 1979. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, National

Fire Data Center. Highlights of Fire in the United States , June 1978.

38
PANEL ON EGRESS CHAIRMAN

Rolf Jensen, P.E. Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc. 100 Wilmot Road

Deerfield, Illinois 60015 VICE CHAIRMAN

Ronald Mace, AIA

Barrier Free Environments, Inc. Post Office Box 3063^ Water Garden, Highway 70 West

Raleigh, North Carolina 27612 919-782-7823 RECORDER

Paul K. McClure

Associate Editor AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-785-7800

John F. Behrens, P.E. Code Consultant 7222 Deep Harbor Drive Huntington Beach, California 926^^8 71^^-960-1538

Rita McGaughey

National Easter Seal Society 2023 West Ogden

Chicago, Illinois 60612

Jake Pauls

Division of Building Research

National Research Council of Canada

Ottawa, Canada KIA OR6

613-993-1323

Richard Pearson

Professor, Industrial Engineering and Psychology Department of Industrial Engineering

Post Office Box 5511 North Carolina State University

Raleigh, North Carolina 27650

919-737-2362

John K. Reddersen, AIA, P.E. Director, Architectural Barriers Staff Office of Facilities and Engineering

U.S. Department of HEW

Room 4605 HEW North

330 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20201 202-245-6776 Norton S. Remmer, P.E. Commissioner

City of Worcester Department of Code Inspection

419 Belmont Street Worcester, Massachusetts 01604

617-798-8151

David S. Sibley Room 330^2 Executive Office of the President

Building Council of Economic Advisors Washington, D.C. 20506

Fred I. Stahl, PH.D.

Research Psychologist BR A355

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-2627 Bertram M. Vogel, P.E. Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3255

Robert W. Young

Representing National Elevator

Industry, Inc. Senior Project Manager

Otis Elevator Co.

5 Farm Springs Farmington, Connecticut 06032

203-677-7300

39
Submitted to Life Safety Committee, NFPA

INTERNAL WORKING DOCUMENT FOR NFPA COMMITTEE USE ONLY. NOT FOR PUBLICATION EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY APPROVED BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE OR THE ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, STANDARDS. DISTRIBUTION IS LIMITED EXCEPT

AS APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE. Reprinted here with permission of the National Fire Protection Association.

5-12* Special Provisions for the Safety of the Handicapped

5-12.1 Every uqvi building having a passenger elevator shall have every

floor below the level of exit discharge and every story served by such elevator, except the level of exit discharge, divided into not less than

two (2) compartments by not less than 1-hour fire resistive construction.

Every door opening in such construction shall be protected by a minimum

of 1-hour fire door having a 450°F maximum temperature rise. Duct openings

shall be protected by single blade or curtain type dampers to restrict

the passage of smoke and flame into the place of refuge. The smaller of

the compartmented areas shall be of size to accommodate 20% of the popu- lation of the floor at the rate of 30 sq. ft gross area per person. Each such compartment shall contain a stairway or elevator. Exception 1 Exception 2 Exception 3 Exception 4

Stories opening directly to grade. Stories having ramps to grade. Stories used solely for the service of the building. Floors or stories used only as parking garages. Exception 5*: Elevators may be used in lieu of the area of refuge if they designed to provide reasonably safe egress from the building

under fire conditions. APPENDIX CH. 5 A-5-12 The provisions in this section are specifically directed to facilitating the evacuation of handicapped individuals who have impaired mobility that prevents their evacuation using emergency egress methods.

A-5-12. 1 Ex. 5 Suggested design criteria for Elevator Installations for Evacuation of the Handicapped.

(1) The installation should be designed to provide evacuation of the fire floor first. The number of elevators used should be not more than n-1 , where n=the

total number of elevators in the building. Elevators should be of suffi- cient number so as to evacuate all persons from the fire floor in less than

4 minutes.

(2) a. Venting of elevator hoistway should not be permitted unless it is part of the smoke control (pressurization) system.
(2) b. A protected area, including the elevator lobby, should be provided

at each floor and should be separated from the corridors by 1-hour fire barrier partitions with openings therein protected by 3/4-hour automatic

closing doors, (see 6-6.2) which are activated by the detection system described hereinafter. Access to at least 2 separate exitways shall be provided from each protection area. In sprinklered buildings, provisions

should be made to keep water out of the elevator hoistway. Elevator

lobbies, including hoistways, should be pressurized to maintain a minimum

positive 0.03 in. v;ater column with respect to the corridor, with doors

to the protected area closed (under fire conditions).

(3) Power Supply. The power supply should be in an approved utility shaft.

An approved secondary power supply to the elevators from an independent

source in accordance with NFPA 70, Section 700-6b, c, or d should also be provided.

(4) a. Smoke Detection System. At least one smoke detector should be located in each elevator lobby with additional detectors spaced in accordance with NFPA 72E located in each corridor:

1. Upon activation of smoke detector in a corridor location, the following should occur:

(a) All elevator lobby fire barrier doors on all floors should

close.

(b) Elevator(s) should go into the shuttle mode.

(c) Fire annunciator panel should indicate fire floor. Shuttle mode is described as follows: Elevator(s) automatically

return to level of exit discharge or transfer floor in accordance with ANSI

A17-1. An announcement or sign will indicate that the elevator should

be evacuated. The doors will close and the elevator(s) will return auto- matically to the fire floor. Load passengers and return to level of exit discharge or transfer floor. This cycle to continue until manual return

switch at level of exit discharge or transfer floor is activated by the fire services or overridden by lobby smoke detector,

2. Upon activation of a lobby detector, the following should occur:

(a) All elevator lobby fire barrier doors on all floors should close.

(b) Mechanical pressurization to shut down.

(c) The elevator(s) should operated in accordance with the requirements of ANSI A17.1 under fire conditions, overriding

the shuttle system.

(d) Fire annunciator panel should indicate fire floor.

(5) Communications. Internal (Inside Cab) - a means of 2-way communications

with the level of exit discharge or transfer floor should be provided (in accordance with the requirements of ANSI A17.1.

Exception 2 to Section 7-4.1 Exception 2: In new buildings, where access for the handicapped is provided in accordance with Section 5-12, designated

elevators may be used for exiting to the level of exit discharge or transfer floor. Where this provision is utilized, the elevators shall not be used for computing

required exit width.

41
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON. D. C. 2040S March 14, 1977 GSA BULLETIN FPMR D- 145 PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND SPACE TO : Heads of Federal agencies

SUBJECT: Facility self-protection plans for using elevators to evacuate

the handicapped

1. Purpose . This bulletin notifies Federal agencies of the guidelines established by the General Services Administration (GSA) for the safe use of elevators for evacuating the handicapped during fire emergencies

and fire drills.

2. Expiration date . This bulletin contains information of a continuing nature and will remain in effect until canceled.

3. Background . a. The use or attempted use of elevators during fires has caused many fatalities. In many of these instances, serious injuries and fatalities resulted from minor fires that otherwise would have been insignificant. Experience has shown that the effects of fire and smoke

on the operation of automatic elevators is unpredictable. Elevators have stopped on fire floors without signals being activated by occupants.

On occasions, elevator doors would not close, preventing movement from

the fire floor. Elevators have also unexpectedly stopped at or between floor levels. When the doors would not open, the passengers were trapped in an atmosphere which would not sustain life.

b. Warning signs have been placed in elevator cabs and/or elevator

lobbies to educate building occupants to use the exit stairways and not

the elevators to egress during a fire emergency.

c. GSA has an ongoing program for the installation of automatic elevator recall systems with emergency service features. High-rise buildings are being given priority in this program. The recall system

takes elevators out of service and returns them to a selected floor immediately upon initiation of a fire signal. Elevators can then be operated only by a key from inside the cab.

d. In some buildings the automatic elevators can be recalled manually with a key control in the elevator lobby and then operated manually with the key control in the elevator cab.

e. In other buildings the only v/ay to retrieve an elevator is when

the elevator responds to the call button. These elevators also have the key control for manual operation.

42
GSA BuHettn FPMR V- 145 March 14, 1977

4. Guidelines . The designated official of each Facility Self-Protectiori Organization should review his present Facility Self-Protection Plan for

the evacuation of handicapped occupants during a fire emergency. If the existing plan is not in conformance with the applicable guidelines

listed below, the Facility Self-Protection Plan should be revised accordingly.

a. Determine the method for recalling or retrieving the automatic

elevators. The GSA buildings manager will be able to provide this information and provide keys for elevator controls. Dependent upon the installed elevator control features, one of the following three methods

will apply to any automatic elevator:

(1) Automatic elevator recall;

(2) Manual elevator recall; or

(3) Retrieval and control after elevator responds to call button.

b. Solicit reconmendations of the local fire department for evacuating the handicapped. Most municipal fire departments survey

buildings, establish predetermined fire attack plans, and have standard operating policies. Fire department response time (the elapsed time between notification and arrival) may influence their recommendations. Professional firefighters are equipped with breathing apparatus and entry tools; and they can use elevators for evacuation, rescue, and firefighting with some degree of safety.

c. In all instances, automatic elevators should be recalled or retrieved during a fire emergency and placed under the control of authorized personnel.

d. Handicapped people who are not capable of negotiating a stair- way in a fire emergency should proceed to a point adjacent to the nearest exit stairway and await further instructions.

e. Prior to using an elevator for the evacuation of the handi- capped (to an area of refuge within the building or to the outside), a knowledgeable and authorized person should determine that it is safe for

this purpose. Normally, the decision regarding the safety of an elevator

during a fire emergency should be made by the responding fire department

and the elevator manually operated by its personnel.

f. In those instances when the fire department recommends evacuation

of the handicapped prior to its arrival, or when a unilateral decision

is made by the designated official of the Facility Self-Protection Organization to use his members for this purpose, those members should

be sufficiently trained and equipped to handle this function. This function snould include:

43
March 14, 1977 GSA Bulletin FPMR D-145

(1) Planned assignment of duties to recall or retrieve and control the use of elevators;

(2) Qualified members of the Facility Self-Protection Organi- zation who can determine which elevators, if any, are safe to use (The location of the fire is the predominant factor in making this decision. For instance, elevators remote from the fire area may be safe to use);

(3) A means of communication to alert Facility Self-Protection Organization members which elevators are designated safe to use; and

(4) A continuous emphasis on training to ensure maintenance

of this capability.

5. Notification . Agency heads should ensure that the contents of this bulletin are disseminated to all elements of the agency and the contents implemented in Facility Self-Protection Plans.

Commissioner

Public Buildings Service

44
ANSI A17. 1-1978

• Rule 211.3 Operation of Elevators Under Fire or Other Emergency

Conditions 21 1 .3a Automatic-Operation Elevators.

All automatic-operation elevators serving three or more landings

or having a travel of twenty-five (25) feet or more, shall conform to the following:

1 A three position (on, off, and by-pass) key-operated switch shall be provided at the main floor for each single elevator or for each

group of elevators. The key shall be removable only in the "on"

and "off" positions. When the switch is in the "on" position, all elevators controlled by this switch and which are on automatic

service shall return nonstop to the main floor, and the doors shall open and remain open.

a An elevator traveling away from the main floor shall reverse at the next available floor without opening its doors. b Elevators equipped with automatic power-operated doors and

standing at a floor other than the main floor, with doors open,

shall close the doors without delay, and proceed to the main

floor. c Door reopening devices for power-operated doors which are

sensitive to smoke, heat or flame shall be rendered inoperative. d Ail car and corridor call buttons shall be rendered inoperative and all call registered lights and direction lanterns shall be

extinguished and remain inoperative. e A car stopped at a landing shall have its "Emergency Stop Switch" rendered inoperative as soon as the doors are closed and it starts toward the main floor. A moving car, traveling to or away from the main floor, shall have its "Emergency Stop Switch" rendered inoperative immediately.

f A sensor in each elevator lobby, which when activated prevents

cars from stopping at that floor, shall not be substituted for the above requirements. 2 Sensing Devices.

In addition to the key-operated switch required in 1 above, heat and smoke or products of combustion sensing devices shall be

installed in accordar.ce with NFPA No. 72D in each elevator lobby at each floor, except the main floor. The activation of a sensing device in any elevator lobby shall cause all cars in all groups that serve that lobby to return nonstop to the main floor. The operation shall conform to the requirements of 211.3a-1-a

to 211.3a-1-e. The key-operated switch required by 211.3a-1, when moved to the "by-pass" position, shall restore ' normal

service independent of the sensing devices. EXCEPTIONS: (U Elevators in buildings which are completely protected by an automatic sprinkler system (See NFPA No. 13 Sprinkler Systems).

(2) Freight elevators located in or at openings into manufacturing areas.

(3) Elevator lobbies at unenclosed landings 3 Elevators without a terminal landing at grade level shall be re- turned to that landing closest to grade level or other approved

level and shall conform to the requirements of 211.3a-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6.' 4 All elevators having a travel of seventy (70) feet or more and ele- vators having a terminal landing seventy (70) feet or more above

.Reprinted from the American National Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators, and Moving Walks, ANSI A17. 1-1978 with permission

of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

45
46
John G. Degenkolb

V| FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER • CODE CONSULTANT M 1720 Chevy Knoll Dr., Glendale, California 91206

Telephone: (213) 245-3075

^9, 1979 Bernard M, Levin Room A363 Building 224 Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C, 20234

Dear Mr, Levin:

First, I would like to express my appreciation for having had the opportunity to participate in the Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped.

My purpose in writing is to try to raise certain considerations

which may have not been considered by other panels, particularly where

exits are considered.

I would like to start by stating ray position. We have gone quite

a way in the last few years making buildings accessible to the "handicapped" however the term is used. But none of those "access" provisions have, even

remotely, considered how they are to exit the building or even to provide

safety for them until they can be removed, I believe we are morally, if not

legally, required to make such provisions.

Then, nothing that we do to make a building more accessible should

be of such a nature as to endanger or increase the risk for the far greater

number of non-handicapped persons who may be present. Lastly, while it is a nice statement that we should not do anything

solely to benefit the handicapped, that isn't possible. On the other hand,

if we improve the safety for the handicapped, it is almost certain that safety will be improved for the non-handicapped. As an example, while the upper story of a building may not require a horizontal exit, a place of refuge for the able bodied, the presence of such a facility may well improve

their safety as well. So, we may well end up by adding a requirement solely because there may be handicapped present which would not be required otherwise , These are some of the points which I believe must be considered.

1) where fire doors are required, and that can include doors between a room and a fire-rated corridor; cross-corridor smoke partition

doors; stairway doors; entrance doors, etc. a certain closing force is needed to bring the door to the closed and latched position for fire pro- tection purposes. The closing force of a door is about 607o of the opening

force. If you accept an 8 pound opening force for an interior door, its closing force will be less than 5 pounds and the door may not close and

latch. If that happens we will have lost our fire protection. If it is an exterior door, subject to wind, stack effect, etc, a greater closing force

is needed. I believe it is in the range of 15 pounds for an opening force

47
-2- and that would amount to 9 pounds for closing. These are bare rainimums and, even so, we may be on the ragged edge of fire safety with no safety margin.

2) I have a concern over the unlatching mechanism. As soon as the unlatching force is removed, the latch again sets to hold a door in the closed position. Should there be a delay mechanism so that there will be a

2 or 3 second delay before the latch springs back into the keeper?

3) There are numerous power door or power assist doors on the market. Some I would consider unacceptable. For example, an exterior foor which is operated by a switch. If the person is in front of the door when

it opens under power, the handicapped may be injured. If the switch is exposed and too readily visible, nuisance actions may well cause the property

owner to disconnect the power of that door if it opened too frequently during

inclement weather. It may pose a security problem and, lastly, the power operator may require back-up power in event of power failure if the door

is particularly stiff in action. On the other hand there are power assist doors which do not open

the door but simply make the door much easier to open. I would prefer this.

4) At the present time there does appear to be somewhat of a con- flict between those who are working for greater security in buildings and

those working for the safety to life from fire. These conflicts must be resolved. Hopefully, the matter of access and egress for the handicapped

will be kept in mind and be given proper consideration. And, finally

5) With the realization that many of the handicapped cannot maneuver steps, it is essential, I believe, that every level into which

the handicapped are provided access and from which egress cannot be made

by a ramp MUST have within that level either a protected area from which

a less hurried evacuation can be made or that level must be provided with

a fire safe elevator. There is no reason why the elevator lobby cannot

serve both of those aims. Before the combination can be accepted, research work on pressurization of elevator lobbies or elevator hoistways must be accomplished. The successful solution of that problem coupled with separation of the lobby from the remainder of the level can produce the safety required for all.

JGD/e

re ly

,

John G. De/enkolb

48
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held at The National Bureau of Standards 26-29 November 1979 PANEL ON REFUGE

29 November 1979

This draft report contains the conclusions and recommendations of the Panel on Refuge.

Several reports which are being prepared by

individual panel members will be submitted

within thirty (30) days for inclusion in the final version of this report. The following instructions were given to the panel to help define the scope of its discussions: o The Panel would not define the term

"handicapped person". o The Panel would not try to write a code

or standard. o Concepts to be utilized exclusively by

the handicapped would not be consi- dered.

o Concepts developed would be kept simple and uncomplicated, and would

apply to "typical" rather than special

situations. o The potential for retrofit of existing

buildings must be considered. o Earthquake zones would not be consi- dered in panel discussions.

In addition, the Panel decided that egress

stairs cannot be considered as places of refuge

for handicapped persons. Stairs must not become

blocked as the result of the presence of handi- capped persons and their equipment.

1. Preamble

As a philosophical approach, the Panel

decided that if a level is accessible to the handicapped, a means of exiting, a safe place of refuge, or other means which would provide

equivalent safety shall be provided. Likewise, no

provisions for the handicapped will be established

for the exclusive use of the handicapped.

It has been the intent of this Panel to provide guidelines which will establish an area of refuge which may be safely occupied by the

inhabitants of a floor in a building, pending their removal from that building. It is not our intent

to inhibit the use of other methods, materials, construction, or devices which would provide

equivalent safety. As a principle, equipment provided to ease

door operation by the handicapped to enter areas

of refuge or egress shall not compromise the

integrity of those protected areas.

It is imperative that confidence in the

ability of an area of refuge to protect the occupant from the spread of fire and smoke be

established. The panel feels that the issue of developing confidence among potential users should be referred to the Education Panel for

resolution.

2. Introduction The panel first decided to develop two

approaches to the question of areas of refuge: one as a staging area for the purpose of holding

building occupants until they could exit the

building, given a time limit of thirty (30) minutes; the other as an area of refuge, with

it9
more strict requirements, in which occupants

could expect to "ride out" the fire for an

indefinite period of time. After developing performance criteria for the two concepts, the committee then decided

that only one type of area was needed. It could be utilized to serve the purposes of both to provide evacuation staging or refuge functions as needed. It could be designated as an area of refuge or a staging area. The panel felt that in keeping with typical code procedures it would develop specific cri- teria for areas of refuge to be placed in both new

and existing buildings. The panel also has attempted to decide upon

the most inherently safe approaches to the

provision of safe areas of refuge for building occupants. We feel that the potential effectiveness of areas of refuge increases with the fire resistance of the building. Parameters were set to define the characteristics of areas of refuge. They are as follows: o Fire department capability: impact of

local fire service capabilities on fire protection for the handicapped, (See research recommendations, section 3.) o Construction type

o Height and configuration of building o Built-in fire protection system (e.g. sprinklers) o Occupant load

o Occupant response capabilities o Staging versus holding area concept

o Hazard of building contents

o Other generalized ideas From those and other ideas the following

criteria have emerged.

2.1 Areas of Refuge

The minimum criteria which the panel has

established for areas of refuge are set forth as

follows: discussion follows each item in the new

construction list of criteria where amplification was deemed helpful. Additional statements explaining the basis for conclusions reached by this panel will be

prepared, if necessary, from analysis of the

conference tapes. Additional reports will be submitted by individual panel members within 30

days.

2.2 Panel Recommendations for Areas of Refuge or Staging Areas: New Construction

1. Fire Emergency Instructions: Posted

on each floor in a conspicuous location. All new buildings must have an approved plan to evacuate the handi- capped or to protect them in a place with an acceptable area of refuge.

Discussion: This decision was based upon

available information on methods in use to make safety procedures available to handicapped persons in accessible

buildings, (e.g.. State of Massachusetts

accessibility regulations).

2. Fire-Resistive Separation: Should be

the same rating as the floor assembly. A minimum two-hour rating is recommended (1 hour if a sprinklered

building). Areas of refuge shall not be permitted in buildings which have

fire ratings of less than 1 hour. Discussion: An area of refuge cannot

survive beyond the fire survival limits of the supporting floor and structure of the

building. A 2-hour rating is recommended

for reasons of maximum safety and durability of the space, and the Panel's feeling that the cost increase over 1-hour protection for an area of refuge would generally be reasonable.

3. Vertical Circulation: There must be

a stair, or fire-safe elevator (which must have standby power) in each

area of refuge.

Discussion: Some members of the Panel

felt that a stair is the most important and

reliable vertical circulation element. This area needs further investigation. Additional research is also needed to develop a

fire-safe elevator.

4. Size of Designated Area: Net area to be determined from formula below: 10% of population to be served (3 15

s.f. /person 90% of population to be served @ 6

s.f. /person

50
Discussion: Able-bodied persons are served at 6 s.f. /person and all handicaps

are accommodated at 15 s.f. /person. The Panel agreed that proportionally, both large and small buildings should be

able to accommodate occupant loads in areas of refuge as established by the formula.

5. Alarms/Communication: Alarms

shall be required; two-way communication is the minimum re- quirement. (Special requirements

should be provided by other panel

groups.) Discussion: As a minimum, an inter- active two-way communications system

within refuge areas must be provided to insure an accurate awareness of the condition and needs of the occupants. However, this panel feels that the

specifications for such equipment are beyond its scope.

6. Ventilation/Smoke Control: Duct

penetrations through the walls, floors or ceilings of areas of refuge

are permitted only when it can be

positively established that smoke

will not be transmitted either through or around the duct.

2.3 Panel Recommendations for Protection of the Handicapped in Existing Buildings. As a minimum, all existing buildings that are

accessible to the handicapped shall have an approved plan to evacuate them or to protect them in place with an acceptable area of refuge.

In addition to an emergency plan, apartments and

hotels must have at least one division of one hour on all sleeping floors. Such a division should create parts which are about equal. Emergency

instructions for each floor shall be posted in a prominent place on that floor in close proximity

to the elevator call buttons or ramp access

points. In a transient occupancy, fire emergency

instructions shall be posted in each room.

Either through an egress pattern or through

areas of refuge, everybody must be able to clear an area likely to be exposed to a fire into an area

not likely to be exposed to a fire in a reasonable

period of time, regardless of handicaps. (The

panel feels that a reasonable period of time is somewhere between I'A minutes and 5 minutes. However, additional research is needed before a

specific determination can be made.)

If everybody cannot be moved to a safe environment by use of an egress pattern or areas

of refuge as stated in the preceding paragraph,

then additional measures must be taken to insure occupant safety. Such measures can include but are not limited to the following:

•^-Subdivision of the building floor (compartmentalization) into separate safe areas by approved methods.

*Cross-corridor fire separations (must be

attached to appropriate rated floor, ceiling, and wall assemblies).

^-Provision of individual staging areas near

stairs Provision of fire-safe elevators *Other approved means 2A Implementation of Requirements for Areas of Refuge

This panel recommends that implementation

plans for establishing areas of refuge or staging areas in buildings be developed by all jurisdictions. For background information on how such a

plan might be applied, the panel has become

familiar with the plan used in the State of Massachusetts. The state has established an

Architectural Barriers Compliance Board. This board is equipped to deal with unusual problems

and aids in enforcement of the state regulations. Some details of the implementation policies used

in Massachusetts follow and are included for informational purposes. *The Compliance Board has legislated authority to enforce handicapped accessibility regulations. Regulations apply automatically to all new

construction, and to changed-use buildings; for renovations, additions and alterations, a

cost vs. value formula applies as follows:

If cost of construction is equal to at

least 5% of building value and parts of building to which regulations apply are

affected, those parts must comply.

If cost of construction is equal to 25% or more of building value, entire building must be made to comply.

Construction performed up to 2^ months

prior to that which triggers latest application of regulations is also counted toward

51
degree of compliance requirement. No

pro-rating of recent work is permitted

thus eliminating easy escape from

regulatory coverage. The Board is empowered to grant variances from

regulations.

3. Recommendations for Additional Research The Refuge Panel has identified an agenda

for additional research. Developments to ameliorate problems encountered with the listed items can be significant in the achievement of effectively fire safe areas of refuge for all building occupants. We recommend that each be

investigated. This following list is not ordered

by priority. Reasonable time required to clear areas

likely to be exposed to fire into areas not

likely to be exposed Development of criteria for a fire-safe elevator Education of people to the inherent safety

of areas of refuge in order to promote use in fire emergencies Two-way communications systems Smoke damper technology Fire Department capability in dealing with hazards should be researched. A methodology should be developed to measure alternate forms of protection where

acceptable fire department capability is not

available. A rating system for establishing a desired

level of fire safety in existing buildings The panel feels strongly that if an

existing building is to be accessible to the handicapped, a reasonable overall

level of fire safety is essential, areas of refuge notwithstanding. The following chart attempts to illustrate our concept

of a rating system. The weighted inputs

to make it work will require a major

research effort.

52
Figure 1. Required Levels of Fire Safety New and Existing Buildings

Required Levels of Fire Safety (Value) 10 Nevv' Buildings

Acceptable Range

Unacceptable Range
PANEL ON REFUGE CHAIRMAN

3. Armand Burgun, AIA

Rogers, Burgun, Shahine & Deschler

521 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10017

212-867-9111

Jannes Lathrop NFPA Life Safety Specialist 470 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02210 617-482-8755

VICE CHAIRMAN

Frank Bosak

City of Memphis

125 N. Main Street Memphis, Tennessee

901-528-2564 RECORDER

Robert N. Sockwell, AIA

Project Manager AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Donald Watson

International Conference of Builidng Officials 5360 S. Workman Mill Road

Whittier, California 90601

213-699-0541 Ada Segal HEW

Architect, R.A.

Regional Office of Facilities Engineering and Construction

1961 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80294

303-327-3385

Sanford Adler Environmental Design Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-2574

A. Jeffrey Shibe National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3175

John Archea

Georgia Institute of Technology

College of Architecture

Atlanta, Georgia 30332

^^04-894-3476

Donald Belles Fire Protection Consultant

101 Cumberland Avenue

Madison, Tennessee 37115 615-868-8877

John G. Degenkolb

Fire Protection Engineer

1720 Chevy Knoll Drive

Glendale, California 91206 Raleigh Pinskey The Press Office 555 Madison Avenue

14th Floor New York, New York

Frank P. Bourgin Preparedness Development Office FEMA - P&P

Room 5020, General Services Building 1800 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.

Michael J. Slifka, P.E. Director, National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc. 1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia 22102
DRAFT REPORT ITEM Subject ; Area of Refuge Submitter : Donald W. Belles Date ; Nov. 28, 1979 Time ; 2:35 A certain level of risk is inherent in all buildings. The purpose of firesafety criteria is to manage or reduce the level of risk from fire to an acceptable level. It should be recognized

it is not possible to achieve an absolute state of safety nor is it generally possible to protect man from his own foolish actions.

The purpose of any Code should be to reduce the level of risk to a reasonable level for both the handicapped and the able-bodied

person.

The three Model Building Codes of the United States - Uniform

Building Code, Standard Building Code and Basic Building Code - have each developed a "package" of requirements applicable to new high-rise buildings. The package of requirements offers two basic

fire protection options. The two options in philosophy involve either "compartmentation" or "complete automatic sprinkler

protection"

.

Implementation of the "compartmentation" option will automatically

result in the erection of a fire rated barrier each floor creating

an area of refuge. Further, a stair and an elevator are required

on each side of the barrier. Where automatic sprinkler protection

is provided, the "package" of requirements involve provision for exiting, fire alerting and communication facilities, smoke control, electrical supervision of sprinkler system components and features

and the like. Where a building is designed to satisfy the package of requirements

found in Model Building Codes for high-rise buildings, a reasonable

level of safety is provided for both the able-bodied and the handicapped person. Therefore, where a building is designed to meet the "compartmentation" or "automatic sprinkler protection"

high-rise construction criteria of the Model Building Codes no further restrictions are warranted.

55
COMMENTARY ON REPORT

OF PANEL ON REFUGE

It would have been helpful if the Panel on Refuge had developed performance

goals for the recommended areas of refuge before deciding on "solutions."

As it is, the areas of refuge apparently must be available if the building

cannot be evacuated in some unknown period of time; it must have 1 hr. fire resistance if sprinklered and 2 hrs . otherwise to allow anyone there to remain

in place until the fire is controlled; it must have a stairway or elevator so

no one has to remain in place; the elevator must be made specially fire-safe

even though it is located in a supposedly fire-safe area of refuge; and smokefree perfection is demanded of conduit and duct penetrations, but no guidance

is given for maintaining a smoke-tight seal on the much larger door openings. Techniques to maintain a tolerable environment in cireas of refuge are not mentioned in either the body of the report or in the research recommendations.

The report implies the need for a "tight seal" in separation barriers, but it

is not possible to completely seal off a portion of a building unless the area

of refuge is constructed with bulkheads and hatches characteristic of a spacecraft. Walls are to some degree "porous," whether they have penetrations or

not

.

Smoke control and movement analyses prove that any normal construction for

smoke barriers and self-closing doors is reasonably effective in reducing the spread of smoke into an area of refuge. Increasing the fire resistance is meaningless unless a raging fire is anticipated right adjacent to the barrier. Increasing the "tightness" of the construction provides very little improvement

in the total time during which a tolerable environment will be maintained, even

if all elements of the construction could be effectively sealed. To concentrate

on a ^ in. or 1 in. piece of conduit penetrating the barrier is senseless. Either pressurization or ventilation can be used to maintain a tolerable en- vironment in the area of refuge. Both have drawbacks, and research is needed

to establish the best means of using these methods in a variety of buildings

without introducing additional problems. Pressurization may increase the dis- tribution of fire and smoke throughout the fire area, particularly if it is compartmented, and it is not unreasonable to ass\mie that the wrong zone could

be pressurized if the system is automatic. Ventilation of the area of refuge has been shown to be effective in keeping the environment free of dangerous levels of smoke for long periods of time.* Normal HVAC systems — provided the same system does not serve both the fire

zone and the area of refuge -- are effective in controlling smoke distribution

if they can be conditioned to go into a 100% supply/100% exhaust mode. Even

opening windows in the area of refuge often will provide adequate ventilation.

Under some conditions smoke from the fire zone could be drawn into the refuge

area, and further research is needed to minimize this risk.

BERT M. COHN

Campbell, John A., "Modern Applications of the Smoke Lock Principle," presentation at annual meeting of National Fire Protection Association, Washington,

D.C. , May 1977.

56
CLARENCE L. NIOIEMUS

Rehabilitation Engineeiliig Consultant

625 Doyle I^ne

Dixon, California 95620

(916) 678-3661

Dr, Bernard Levin Uaited States Department

of Ccumerce National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Deceniber 30, 1979

ref : Conference on Fire

Safety for the Handicapped, Nov-

• 26 - 29, 1979.

Dear Dr. Levin: Below are my conments on the report of the PANEL ON REFOGEE, The criteria set forth for design of safe areas by the Panel on Refuge

lacks several very significant items. If we are to encourage the use

of refuge or safe areas , we must

:

1. Facilitate access by all people:

a) Accessible entry ports. If the safe area (SA) is to be entered

quickly, the entry ports must be easily managed by all. What

ever hardware is used, it must capable of being opoied by a

person with hi^ level quadripl^a in a ^^eelchair.

b) Multipass entry ports. Since not all people can reach the SA

at the same time (1 1/2 - 5 minutes) the port must permit multiple pass entry without compromise of the environment in the SA. c) Continuous, dynamic directional signals. Visual and audible

signals must be ernployed during the fire anergency to insure

that all people can find the SA location in anoke. Strobe

lighting, high/low placenent of lights, non confusing audible frequencies can and should be used.

2. Facilitate life within the safe area:

a) Breathable air. More than just a requirement to "keep anoke and toxic gasses out", there is a real necessity to renew or

replace the breathable air within the SA. Tbrtunately, both

can be accciiiplished by pressurization . When the SA is designed

adjacent to the elevator shaft, pressurization of both the shaft and the SA can be accai5)lished together.

b) Acceptable tenperataire . The Panel concluded that a two hour

fire rating is eppropriate for the SA in most cases. I agree. Ihis length of exposure to possible high tonperatures however

raises a question concerning SA environmental temperature rise

if standard, steel fixe doors are used. High unexposed surface

57
ten^^eratures of these standard doors can subject occupants to unbearable heat conditions as \well as to secondary ignition within the SA. Temperatures as high as 500 F have been measured depending on content and proximity of heat sovirce relative to e3qx)sed side.

3. Encourage safe area development through building design econonies.

a) The SA cannot be an vmutilized island at tim^ other than

emei^encies. The floor space incorporated within the SA must

be available for everyday productive use, not just during

aoei^encies. With current costs/demands for floor space \^4iat they are, dead, unproductive floor space cannot be tolerated. The SA must be totally int^rated into the general floor use.

b) The SA design must be consistent with attractive architectural

design. The SA cannot be an "eyesore" or burden on an other- wise attractive interior design. It should be consistent with

current trends for open space design and flexible space arrangements. This is a challenging design criteria, but without meeting it, a SA becones an undesirable extra cost.

c) Non separate or special HVAC consideration. Consistent with b), above, additional HVAC expenses for incorporating the SA in new

and retrofit design can be reduced through use of continuous open space-flexible fire barrier concepts. Essentially, using

the flexible fire barrier concept, the SA does not exist until emergency does. Many of these items appear to ai^e against the reasonable use of safe

areas or refuge areas. In the past this may have been the case. Very

recently however, the availability on the market of a flexible fire barrier has rendered all of these design constraints manageable. Indeed,

it has allowed new creativity in flexible space design with builtin fire

safety.

Clarencee L. Ni< Ifember of the Board, National Task Ibrce^ on Life Safety

and the Handicapped. CLNrsgo

58
International Conference of Building Officials

5360 SOUTH WORKMAN MILL ROAD • VVHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601 • (213) 699-0541

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PRESIDENT

OFFICES OF THE December 21, 1979

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT JOHN C. CANESTRO

CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL HAYWARD. CAUFORNIA SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT WILUAM F. FUREY, P.E. SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDINC

RIVERSIDE, CAUFORNIA

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT JOHN J. McKINNON. ?£. BUILDING AND SAFETY

DIRECTOR TORRANCE. CAUFORNIA

JACKS. ATKINS, PX

BUILDING OFFICIAL PLACERVILLE, CAUFORNIA

JOHN E. BOSS

BUILDING OFFICIAL COUNTY OF LANE

EUGENE. OREGON

CHARLES LQILLETT

CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE

LITTLETON. C

" DONALD T. ItecRAE, P£. STATE BUILDING COMMISIONER

STATE OF INDIANA ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING COUNCIL

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA LESTER E. PAJOE, JR. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/

BUILDING OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORT WORTH, TEXAS DAVE SCOTT, P.E. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF

SAFETY

TEMPE. ARIZONA CHARLES a.SEALE,AU

SUPERINTENDENT OF CODES ADMINISTRATION UNCOLN. NEBRASKA

CHARLES W. V0L2.A1A CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

H.T.WIEOENMAN.P.E. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING DES MOINES, IOWA EDWARD F. WINTER, PJE. BUILDING OFFICIAL CEDAR RAPIDS. IOWA

JACK V. WINTER

BUILDING OFFICIAL COUNTY OF TEHAMA

RED BLUFF, C

Doctor Bernard M. Levin Design Concepts Research Room A363, Building 224 National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234 Dear Dr. Levin: As a member of the panel on Refuge, I offer the following comments

on the report developed by majority opinion of the panel members

participating:

1. BASIC CONCEPT - At the start of the meeting, the chairman

set forth several areas that should not be a consideration

of the panel. One concept was that earthquakes should

not be a consideration of the panel in establishing acceptable

areas of refuge. Many areas of the country are located

in seismic zones where loss of water can happen in a moderate

earthquake. In the event of an earthquake, loss of elevators may result from structural damage or power failure. Additionally, it is possible that damage may occur which would

block normal access to escape routes, thus putting a certain sector of handicapped persons in jeopardy. At some point, the decisions made for areas of refuge should be reviewed

to see what changes, if any, would be required in seismic

areas.

2. BASIC PREMISE - The panel decided that if any portion

of a building can be reached by elevators, provisions must

be made to evacuate the handicapped or provide an area _^ of refuge or ramp exits from the level served by the elevator.

It is my opinion that this should not be a mandatory require- ment. For example, if a dining establishment has a mezzanine

level that can be reached by elevator and the menu is

Regional Offices: 6738 N.W. Tower Drive • Kansas City, Missouri 641 51 • (816)741-2241

1 7544 Midvale Avenue N., Suite 304 • Seattle, Washington 981 33 • (206)542-9421

59
2

the same at both levels, it should not be mandatory to provide an area of refuge or ramp exit from the mezzanine. The handicapped should not be prohibited from eating

in the mezzanine but should be made aware that in the event of elevator failure no special provisions have been made for those who cannot use the stairs for exit purposes.

Similarly, in a hotel where all floors have similar room

accommodations, 1 see no reason to provide safe egress

or areas of refuge for the handicapped from aU levels. There are many other similar examples which would justify not providing egress for the handicapped. 1 do feel that

if a restaurant or meeting rooms are located on an upper

level access and egress for the handicapped should be

a consideration.

3. TRAVEL DISTANCE TO AREAS OF REFUGE - This was

considered by the committee, but it was concluded that spacing should not be a consideration. In an open plan

building, spacings of areas of refuge should be a consideration

as is travel distance to stairs for an able-bodied person.

4. EXISTING BUILDINGS - As noted under "Basic Premise"

above, I feel that just because an area can be reached

by elevator, it should not be mandatory to provide egress

facilities for the handicapped in many instances.

5. FIRE DEPARTMENT CAPABILITIES - The panel agreed

their report on areas of refuge was based on the fact that an adequate fire department was available. It is essential that a description of what is "an adequate fire department"

be established as a guideline to those who may utilize the report. It is further necessary that future research be conducted to establish requirements for areas of refuge where there is no fire department or a very limited fire department.

I appreciate the opportunity to comment and to have participated on the Panel on Refuge. Yours very truly,

D. R. Watson, p. E. Technical Director DRW:jg

60
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held At The National Bureau of Standards 26-29 November 1979 PANEL ON SELF-PROTECTION

7 December 1979

1. Introduction The original charge to the panel was as follows: "To concentrate on the psychological and physical aspects of handicapped individuals providing for personal protection and performing

specific fire safety duties." The panel modified the charge as follows: "To concentrate on the educational , psychological and physical needs of handicapped indivi- duals required for personal protection and per- forming specific fire-related life safety func- tions in buildings ." The panel listed critical points related to self-protection to be considered in the deliberations:

1. Establishment of emergency action

plans;

2. Definition of handicapped indivi- duals consisting of physical, sensory, and mental limitations;

3. The need to prioritize occupancies. The panel decided to utilize the occupancy classification developed

by the products workshop group and

presented in their report.

In order to guide the deliberations, the panel defined self-protection as follows: "To protect

oneself from harm in potential or actual fire- related situations." The panel also defined critical concepts in the definition of self -protection as follows: Protect - "Involves behavioral actions and the

processes of recognition and awareness with consideration of problems, solutions and limitations

of individuals, with consideration of the use of systems and the perception of the need for protection." Oneself - "The individual and the immediate work

or family group, or society."

2. Problems The panel developed a matrix of problems

relative to the occupancies identified in the Product Workshop Report. The panel then immediately weighted the problems by occupancies

with "1" or "0". Over Tuesday night the panel members were requested to weight problems on a

scale of "0" to "3", with "3" indicating the most

severe and "0" indicating the least severe prob- lem. Five members accomplished this task. The

weighted matrix was presented to the panel, and

is presented as figure 1 of this report.

3. Solutions The panel developed solutions to the pro- blems identified in the matrix (see figure 1) as

follows: Problem 1 - Notification (both communication of message and ineffectiveness of message once

received)

.

Solutions la. Requires a multi-model ap- proach to alerting persons to a

fire situation, including auditory, visual, tactual, olfactory and temperature modes.

61
b. Notification through persons

could include auditory, visual,

tactile, and verbal modes.

c. Verification procedures - re- dundant cues are needed to assure response.

d. Notification of fire depart- ment and emergency medical

services using neighbors, tele- phone devices for the deaf

(TTY), telephone, tapes and/or automated devices, prepro- grammed telephones, Portatels, etc.

e. Improved design and maintenance of alarm systems;

hardv/are could include the standardization of notification techniques and maintenance

procedures.

f. Uniformity of signal related to sensory modes in la. Problem 2 - Lack of Knowledge (and) Problem 5 - Training and Education Note: for the purpose

of ' generating solutions, these problem areas were combined since Training and Education

(problem 5) will decrease lack of knowledge

(problem 2). See Figure 1.

Solution 2 and 5

a. Research and development - could gather data, and improve

present systems.

b. Model programs - could develop procedures, including the dissemination and evaluation of model programs.

c. Educational materials should be developed relative to the problem area (2) identified in matrix as lack of knowledge

about building, potential hazards, danger of fire, emergency procedures, fire protection systems, fire behavior, and population characteristics,

for the occupancies identified

in the matrix as residential - single, residential - multiple, commercial, office, industrial, public assembly, institutional and educational. Materials

also should be developed for

assisting in the establishment

of emergency action plans for specific buildings.

d. Educational materials could be developed and

disseminated relative to specific handicapped populations, and to populations or persons involved with specific handicapped populations.

e. Educational materials could be developed relative to dis- abled persons in general for dissemination to the general

public.

f. Educational materials could be developed and disseminated relative to fire-safety

provisions for disabled persons in the various types of occupancies. These materials would be disseminated to designers, managers/supervisors, and occupants.

Prcrblem 3 - Limitations of Persons Could design, develop, market and disseminate information relative to notification systems, buildings, training and self -protection products. Education and training pro- grams could be developed and

disseminated relative to atti- tudes toward handicapped and

attitude of disabled persons. Programs could include infor- mation on related laws (such as P.L.9'f-l'f2 (Education for

All Handicapped Children Act) and Section 50^^ of P.L.

93-112 (Rehabilitation Act of

1973). Problem - Limitations of Buildings Educational materials devel- oped in solutions (2) and (5) could be disseminated to building design professionals. Programmatic development

of codes could improve

buildings and remove limitations. Different strategies for im- provement could be required 62
for existing or new buildings.

d. Improvements could be part of

retrofit, renovation, or re- modeling projects.

e. Egress considerations could be

incorporated as an essential aspect of access (possible interpretation relative to

Sec.50t^).

f. For existing buildings where

retrofit or renovation is unfeasible specific emergency

procedures and plans could be developed relative to the

variables of knowledge areas

for the occupancy as identified

in problem and solution (2) and

(5).

4. Recommendations &: Actions

*.l Short Term - (to July 1981)

1. Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped should develop or adapt the following educational

item: self-survey emphasizing development of emergency procedures.

a. Should be concise, based on

the information from figures A

and B developed by the education workshop. Also, should be

oriented to residential occupancies; be targeted to all handicapped populations; emphasize the development of emergency procedures; and in- corporate survey and self-sur- vey guides.

2. Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped should develop a catalogue of products for self-protection and other fire-related situations.

a. Develop and initiate a survey

of products within six months

(before next meeting sponsored by the Task Force). The

survey should refer to fire education materials survey

already conducted by U.S. Fire Administration., and include the following:

1. Off-shelf items (i.e. presently

available) 63

2. Cost

3. Source

4. Use information

b. Organize results into a catalogue format to be completed by 3uly 1981 which

should be made available to the

public.

1. Easily updated (suggest

loose-leaf format)

2. Easily used

3. Include recommendations

from products workshop

4. Consider using catalogue

producers as publishers/

distributors (e.g. Sweets,

F.W. Dodge Corp.)

5. Possibility of self- support? (Support from

manufacturers, advertising)

c. Disseminate the catalogue to the following :

1. Disabled individuals and

their organizations

2. Building design

professionals

3. Fire protection personnel

3. The Task Force should develop a

series of self -protection and fire safety brochures related to specific

disabilities (physical, sensory, mental). Brochures for residential occupancies

should be directed to occupants, owners, and managers, and to special living arrangements (e.g. half-way houses, group homes.) Brochures for residential occupancies should be completed

first, followed by brochures for other types of occupancies. Brochures should be completed by January 1981. Material in brochures

should incorporate suggestions from educational workshop

conclusions. Brochures for all occupancies and handicaps should emphasize emergency procedures.
4. The Task Force should develop a program model which effectively conveys fire-life safety information to individual handicapped persons by 3uly 1981. The information should be

transmitted by means of the

following:

a. Fire safety group

b. Educational institutions

c. Public media

d. Educators and student teachers

e. Professional associations

5. The Task Force should develop a program model which effectively conveys fire/life safety building design information about handi- capped persons to professional groups by July 1981. Information

should be transmitted to the

following:

a. Building design professionals

b. Managers

c. Government officials

d. Building officials

e. Fire officials

f. City managers association

g- Others Long Term (to be completed after July 1981)

1. The Task Force should establish consensus performance criteria for product development relative to the following:

a. Notification system

b. Building systems

c. Personal protection devices

(see Products Workshop report)

2. The Task Force should develop a

plan for the production of products

to meet the performance criteria specified in the preceding item. The plan should include marketing

strategies.

3. The Task Force should develop strategies to obtain recognition of building design systems which enhance the

self -protection of handicapped individuals in fire-related situations.

a. Obtain code approval of the systems for new,

renovated or modified

buildings (Ref. Sec. 50^).

b. Building design systems

identified in Building Design Workshop should be utilized.

c. The Sec. 50tt- definition of access should include egress considerations.

If-. Incorporate and coordinate information about handi- capped individuals in fire-re- lated situations with other

educational programs and

laws, (PL93.112, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sec. 50'f). To accomplish the following: reinforce positive attitudes related to handicapped persons; increase public exposure and increase awareness bet- ween all members of our

society.

5. Modify existing data

gathering systems to obtain data which reflects the ex- perience of handicapped persons in fire related situations. Should include the type of

disabilities; and medication where possible.
Table 1 MATRIX OF PROBLEMS & OCCUPANCIES

WEIGHTED BY SEVERITY IN OCCUPANCY

If If 11 I 11 I § iTwtrS cS O S (5< £ m

1. NOTIFICATION (COMMUNICATION OF SIGNAL) 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5

a. Ineffectiveness of signal (lack of confidence) 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0

2. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about..

a. Building 0 0.8 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.4 1.2 1.0

b. Potential Hazards 1.8 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.0 1.8 1.0 1.4

c. Danger of Fire 1 .6 1 .8 2.6 1 3 1 8 2.0 1 .2 0.8

d. Emergency Procedures 2 0 1 g 1 .0 1 .8 0.2 0.2

e. Fire Protection Systems 0.8 ll 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 1.0 1.0

f. Fire Behavior 2.2 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.4

g- Population Characteristics 0 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.8 0.8

3. LIMITATIONS OF PERSONS

a. Physical 1.4 1.8 2.6 1.8 1.6 2.6 1.4 1.4

b. Sensory 1.4 1.6 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.4 1.4

c. Mental 1.4 1.6 2.0 1.8 1.6 2.2 1.4 1.4

d. Attitude towards and of Handicapped Persons 0 1.0 1.8 1.6 0.4 1.6 0.2 1.0

e. Psychological Aspects of

Building Use (lack of confidence) 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.6 2.2 1.4 1.6

4. LIMITATIONS OF BUILDING

a. Fire Protection Systems 1.2 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.0 1.0

b. Access 1.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.2

c. Egress 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

d. Areas of Refuge 0 1.4 2.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.2 1.2

e. Building System Deficiencies 1.8 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.8

5. TRAINING AND EDUCATION

a. Lack of Materials 2.2 2.4 2.2 1.8 1.6 2.2 1.8 1.6

b. Limited Programs and Materials 2.2 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.6 1.8

6. IDENTIFICATION AND

DEVELOPMENT OF PROCEDURES 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.0 1.6 2.4 1.4 1.6

SCALE 0-3

65
PANEL ON SELF-PROTECTION CHAIRMAN

John Bryan

University of Maryland

Dept. of Fire Protection Engineering College Park, Maryland 207^*2 301-if5^-2^2^ VICE CHAIRMAN

Clarence Nicodemus

Dept. of Rehabilitation 830 K Street Mall Sacramento, California 93814

916-322-0716

\

\ RECORDER

Norman Groner

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3175

Phineas Anderson USFA/FEMA

2400 M Street, N.W., - Room 606

Washington, D.C. 20472 202-634-7553 Guy Clark

Architectural Barriers Compliance

Officer Veterans Administration

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20420

202-389-3248 George Dolim, AIA

Hertzka & Knowles, Architects

1005 Sansome Street San Francisco, California 94II1 415-781-7121

Randolph E. Kirby

Alexandria Fire Marshal's Office

319 Prince Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 703-750-6654

Richard Klinker General Services Administration

18th & F Streets, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20405

202-566-1635

Carol Ann Pfau

Paralyzed Veterans of America

4330 East-West Highway - Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 20014 202-652-2135 Thomas Seymour

U.S. Department of Labor OSHA

Room N-3463

200 Constitution Avenue

Washington, D.C. 20210 202-523-7216

Robert Vreeland Psychology Department

Davie Hall 01 3 A

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 919-966-1269 Edmond Leonard

President's Comnnittee for Hiring the Handicapped

nil 20th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Zaven Khachaturian, Ph.D.

National Institute on Aging

Building 31 National Institutes of Health

Bethesda, Maryland 20205

301-496-1033

66
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held At The National Bureau of Standards 26-29 November 1979 PANEL ON MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

7 December 1979

1. Introduction The purpose of the Management Actions

Panel was to concentrate on the developmental,

educational, and implementation aspects of providing for certain managerial and planning actions

that increase the fire safety of handicapped

individuals. The concerns of building owners,

proprietors, and managers with occupant safety were addressed. Management's role in providing for and imple- menting appropriate circumstances which provide

for the fire safety of handicapped individuals, as well as that of all other building occupants, is a prime one. Management must be aware of and concerned

with conditions of hazard. It must assume the

responsibility to acquire knowledge, develop plans, and implement actions which specifically address the needs of handicapped persons, their strengths and limitations, in matters affecting their safety

during times of fire emergency. This responsibility should include but not be limited to 1) building evacuation plans; 2) hazard prevention and fire-safe buildings; 3) public education 4)code management and change; and 5) the establishment

of reliable statistical information.

2. Right to Risk A primary concern of those responsible for the safety of building occupants is the issue of any

disabled person's right to risk. There must be some degree of balance between unlimited

accessibility with its liability implications and economic impact on building proprietors. The

functioning of handicapped persons in all segments

of society carries the assumption of risk not only

to the handicapped individual but to other people

as well. While all individuals have the right to go where they wish, handicapped individuals especially need the information necessary to determine their level of risk, in light of their specific handicaps, in different buildings. Living

as safely as possible within one's own limitations must apply equally to handicapped and non- handicapped people. The right to risk issue can

be seen as a balance between avoidance of unreasonable risk on one hand and total freedom

of movement on the other.

3. Problem Areas The problems addressed by the panel on management actions appear here in order of

priority. While it was difficult for the panel to agree on the priority of the various problems and

solutions discussed, consideration was given to: the relative costs of potential solutions in terms

of time and money; acceptability to various constituencies and the general public; the availability of resources; what we already know about

various solutions; and what we need to find out.

3.1. Fire Emergency Planning

It is incumbent on building owners and managers to plan for fire emergency.

Federal, state, and local laws must be promulgated or revised so that building owners and managers are provided with the mandate and guidelines to devise appropriate building evacuation plans. At the federal level, guidelines must be

developed as tools for evacuation

67
planning. In planning for and implementing

the use of building evacuation plans, several needs can be identified. General building evacuation guidelines, as designed by an

organization such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) must be tailored

to the needs of a particular facility. (It was

suggested that all buildings over 5,000 sq. ft. need an evacuation plan). This can be accomplished by performing a risk analysis

for a building to demonstrate to building designers, owners, and managers the fire safety hazards that must be addressed. Fire safety plans must include information on the

following:

1. priority of movement of building occupants

2. specific evacuation routes and alter- nate routes (horizontal or vertical evacuation)

3. the appointment of floor wardens

for building compartments or de- partments based on size and use, to monitor safety conditions and direct exercises

^. the plan should be developed by the

building owner/manager in conjunction with local fire services

5. means of self protection (e.g. areas

of refuge)

6. transient building occupant information (e.g. check-in procedures)

7. in-house monitoring of safety hard- ware and systems

8. graphics for denoting escape routes

9. notification of occupants

10. notification of fire department A model for such guidelines exists in the requirements for disaster planning of hospitals and nursing homes:

1. prepare general disaster plan for

fire, flood, earthquake, etc., including general evacuation plan which must be posted. Consider:

fire department notification and response means of communicating infor- mation about the disaster

trained assistance personnel

2. perform at least 12 fire drills/year

3. promulgate "no smoking" control

regulations

>4: maintenance, upkeep and testing of

fire safety systems smoke detection systems

sprinklers and other suppression systems

fire alarms smoke evacuation and other mechanical systems

fire dampers and fusible links Implementation of building emergency evacuation

plans must be accomplished through performance

of regular evacuation exercises. All building occupants, including those who are handicapped, must be included in evacuation exercises in order

to promote appropriate fire emergency response. Evacuation exercises familiarize occupants with

the path to the area of safe refuge, whether

vertical or horizontal. Rescue personnel must

occasionally be consulted in re-evaluating the effectiveness of such plans. Among the strategies which can be identified for accomplishing the objectives of a building evacuation plan are:

1. the requirement of building evacuation plans in order to obtain occu- pancy permits

2. use of trade and professional associations to develop and promote

fire emergency plans (e.g., BOM A,

International Association of Fire Chiefs)

3. use of state and local governmental

resources to assure planning and

exercises (e.g.. League of Cities, NACO, Governor's Conference)

i^. the encouragement of promulgators

of building codes to include require- ments for fire emergency plans

5. the encouragement of insurance

officials to offer incentives for the

provision of building emergency and

evacuation plans. Direct incentives to building owners and managers

to take responsibility for fire emergency planning 68
might include: systems, alarms)

1. reduced insurance rates

2. receipt of federal funds for certain occupancies in the form of rent

subsidies or other publicly funded programs (e.g., housing grants, revenue sharing, FMHA, etc.)

3. tax deductions for fire safety modifications

^. reduced liability for occupant safety and risk

5. ability to attract certain tenants

6. good public relations and advertise- ment

7. awards Appendix A lists several current programs

which have attempted to address the problem of emergency planning for handicapped individuals.

3.2. Hazard Prevention and Fire-Safe

Buildings For building evacuation plans to be effective, appropriate preventive maintenance,

housekeeping and safe practices must be

observed. This type of hazard prevention can become a reality at virtually no cost. The

development of fire-safe buildings is also important, but will be realized only after consi- derable time and at significant cost, involving the implementation of design changes in new and

existing buildings. The maintenance, upkeep and testing of safety systems and equipment of existing

buildings is a responsibility of building owners

and managers. The proper functioning of fire safeguards and systems is imperative to ensure

the degree of safety intended by design. Systems

that are inoperable simply defeat their fire safety objectives. Hazard prevention also includes control of ignition sources and fuels for

fire, as well as hardware maintenance. Some

elements of building safety systems which must

be verified on an ongoing basis are:

1. good housekeeping - clear corridors, adequate identification and security

of hazardous areas, proper storage

of materials.

2. maintenance and operation of systems - devices and equipment

(e.g., emergency power supplies, door hardware, communications

3. currency of building evacuation

plans

4. special occupancy aids

5. safe practices (e.g., "No Smoking"

regulations, proper chemical handling, open flames, unobstructed

exits). Several strategies were outlined for promoting and facilitating the maintenance, upkeep and

testing of fire safety systems of buildings. These

include:

1. training of managers and occupants

2. assignment of responsibilities for monitoring safety conditions (e.g., designation of floor wardens for each floor, assigned area, or fire compartment)

3. utilization of various levels of management for inspection pro- grams for furnishings, hazardous

areas, etc. (self inspection, inspection by local fire services, by

volunteer "watchdog" groups, etc.)

4. routine preventive maintenance

5. documentation of equipment

checks, exercises, etc.

6. publicity for safety programs

7. implementation of safety inspections at government levels. (The

U.S. Fire Administration should act on their charge of developing a fire safety effectiveness rating system

to perform safety inspections.) Incentives for maintenance of fire safe buildings and testing of safety systems include:

1. recognition from local government

and civic associations as well as award programs at higher levels where they carry more weight, such as BOMA, USFA, Governor's Conference, NLC, NFPA,

President's Committees, "All American Cities".

2. fire prevention week promotions

3. public attention to safe facilities

4. insurance premium reductions for 69
total safety systems. The need to provide fire safe buildings for all building occupants is a primary responsibility of building owners and managers as well as local government. The problem of fire-safe design was

addressed for both new and existing buildings. Several elements contributing to the total fire safety building environment are:

1. layout - including multiple means of egress and areas of refuge, as well

as access

2. building and life safety code compliance

3. fire protection devices such as

sprinklers and alarms

i^. selection of construction materials

5. access for fire fighting (possible use

of elevators)

6. contents and furnishings At the design stage, cost benefits must be evaluated in light of long-term economic and

safety considerations. There must be improved communication between building designers, managers, owners and local government from building inception in order for fire safety strategies to be

effective in operation.

Fire safety improvements to existing

buildings must be made in order to meet the

special needs of any handicapped occupants. General upgrading may involve renovation or

retrofit of facilities to provide a combination of alarm, detection systems, sprinklers, improved

egress, and areas of refuge to provide a level of

fire safety appropriate to the use of the building. For example, it is possible to provide, within an environment such as a group home, an area of special protection for a nonambulatory occupant.

Likewise, a deaf occupant may be provided certain aids to accommodate his special needs within

a facility. The basic philosophy of going beyond minimum requirements should be the impetus to

fire safety upgrading in both new and existing

buildings. Among the strategies for improving fire safety in buildings are:

1. use of appropriate review, inspection, and enforcement to ensure

safety components when issuing and

continuing occupancy permits

2. use of trade and professional associations to develop and promote

alternative strategies for meeting

fire safety objectives.

3. use of emergency services personnel as consultants on design and improving buildings

^. balancing costs and benefits not

only in terms of dollars but also human factors

5. improved communications between

designers, engineers, building owners, and managers who can relate to use and occupancy of

buildings. Such communications

can lead to the practice of providing for a "building owners

manual" which will pass on useful safety information from designers

to the users and disseminators of that information

6. use of safety inspections Among the possible incentives to encourage the

builders of fire-safe buildings are:

1. improved safety of occupants

2. reduced insurance premiums for implementation of a total risk- management plan.

3. linking receipt of federal and state funds (rent subsidies, HUD grants,

etc.) on periodic review and

approval of safety standards

'f. tax deductions for fire safety modifications

5. reduced owner liability

6. awards and publicity

7. occupant confidence

8. protection of capital investment

3.3. Training and Public Information The need for more and better means of training all building users in fire safety procedures was identified at many levels. Targets of training and public information programs include everyone from designer and planner to building

officials, fire officials, maintenance personnel, and the public. Fire safety awareness curricula must be disseminated through a variety of channels including regional education boards,

professional training schools, public schools, and

other trade and professional organizations. 70
Strategies for increasing fire safety education and

training include:

1. incorporation of fire safety into courses in design and construction in colleges universities, and technical

schools

2. development of training programs in fire prevention that can be utilized at elementary levels and up

3. include handicapped individuals in the group developing educational

materials and curricula

i^. develop pilot programs for inclusion

in architectural and other

professional curricula

5. utilize trade and professional

journals, organizations and associations (USFA, NCSBCS, University

Affiliated Facilities)

6. utilize model code organizations, lobby groups, advocates

7. utilize free sources of information

dissemination (e.g., "bill stuffers."

8. on examinations for licensure and

professional certification, include questions on fire safety and the handicapped

9. develop and utilize "canned" audiovisual presentations (NCARB,

Engineers, AIP, etc.). including some for use by civic groups

10. civic clubs may provide assistance

(e.g., put in curb ramps, smoke

detectors)

11. Speakers Bureaus in local communities should include chiefs, other fire safety experts, handicapped people and advocates

12. use mass media, e.g., public service announcements

13. use trade unions such as firefighters and police in volunteer capacity to promote and sponsor programs on

fire safety and the handicapped.

Incentives for promoting fire safety education and training include recognition, awards, and general good will as well as improved

professional qualifications. The long term goal of

this education program should be improved fire safety for all people, especially those who are

handicapped. Appendix B gives information on some programs to implement fire safety education and training. 3A. Code Management

Building and fire safety codes and standards need to remain current with the state-of-the-art

in fire safety. There is a need to encourage

administrators to effect code changes to provide

for fire safety of the handicapped. In order to advance codes and standards development, a better understanding of flexibility and alternatives in code interpretations may be needed. One solution to the problem of code enforcement

is to allow alternative design solutions and tradeoffs in fire safety. features. Such a system, the HEW/NBS Fire Safety Evaluation System, has been developed and tested for hospitals and

nursing homes and may be developed for other

types of buildings as well. A better understanding of the code-making process is needed by designers, as well as building owners

and managers and government officials. Several strategies are available for effecting more timely code development and changes. These include:

1. use of advocacy and consumer

groups to promote their causes with code promulgators

2. use of research to provide support data to promote code changes

3. awareness campaigns to inform all levels of building officials about code requirements and to create a climate for change (see previous

section on Public Information and

Training)

1+. encourage legislation for code

changes

5. encourage "usefulness" and "equivalence" in code interpretation.

6. encourage handicapped persons and

advocates to contribute to the codes and standards process (i.e., membership on ANSI committees)

Public pressure, lobbying, and technology advances may help promote code changes.

3.5. Fire Information and Statistics The need for more reliable statistical information and data concerning fire problems

underlies all the other problems addressed above. Data which will help to identify the disabilities leading to fire safety problems and which relate

71
levels of risk in a fire emergency with type of

disability may be used to rank and evaluate

potential solutions to safety problems.

In-depth investigative reporting systems can

be used to acquire this data. Detailed reporting on handicaps, human responses, and building impediments leading to fire casualties should be

reported on a National Reporting System such as the National Fire Data Reporting System.

Additional legislation may be needed to mandate

fire reporting programs and to centralize data. New research can help to further define the parameters that may affect fire safety for users

of buildings, whether handicapped or not. The main incentive for increasing our data base is credibility and knowledge in coping with

the fire safety issue.

'f. Schematic Synopsis Figure 1 illustrates one perspective on the

relationship between problem areas in fire safety

(operation fields) and management. At the risk of oversimplification, only three operation fields are defined and only six levels of management.

It should be clear that not only are other

distinctions possible, but, in fact, are needed to

classify any particular relationship. It is also extremely important to recognize that the six problem areas delineated in the full report have

been reduced to three operation fields.

In this figure, the problems arising in evacuation planning, creating fire-safe buildings, and

hazard prevention are translated (roughly) into the operation fields of human conditions and

activities, buildings, and contents, respectively. The management problems associated with

training and public information, code manage- ment and statistics/research cut across these operation fields in complex ways. A full understanding of particular relationships will require an analysis of these complex

problems as discussed in the full report.

5. Future Actions Required

1. Cost analysis for implementing the recommendations (should be done on

a state by state basis and item by

item where feasible).

2. Implement quickly those items identified to be of relatively low cost, high value and acceptability. (Example: Evacuation planning Guidelines and Evacuation Plans.)

3. Reassess priorities of programs

after cost analysis is completed.

^. Study implications of building occupancy and size to fire safety for handicapped persons.

5. Identify and contact special groups

that would be instrumental in imple- menting the recommendations.

6. Establish group of experts (such as FEMA, NFPA, USFA, lAFC, HEW/RSA, A&TBCB, etc.) to deter- mine which recommendations can be implemented within existing resources and in a relatively short time frame.

7. Recommend amending model

building and fire codes to better

reflect fire safety provisions, e.g. egress and compartmentalization, which benefit handicapped people.

8. Contact appropriate (USFA, NFDRS,

NFPA, etc.) agencies to collect vital statistics on the fire deaths and

injuries of handicapped people.

9. The panel did not have adequate

opportunity to identify suitable sources of funds available to managers in public and private sectors. It was felt that public funds should be used to assist municipalities in developing emergency plans which

include fire safety and the handi- capped. The National Institute for Handicapped Research should fund

both research and pilot programs in this area. Private grants or donations can be used to assist at a smaller scale of action. Even "in kind" contributions, such as smoke

detector installation programs, are

significant in this effort. Fire safety for the handicapped, as well as for non-handicapped persons, must be a national

priority. It can, thus, be a focal point and

stimulus for voluntary and mandatory action, both

publicly and privately initiated.

6. Appendix A

Current Plans with Handicapped Provisions and Other Efforts During the panel discussions several relevant

efforts were identified. These include current

plans that incorporate provisions for the handicapped and other efforts to address the 72
needs of different handicapped popuiations in emergency preparedness planning. These are: o Georgia Disaster Plan: Appendix

o Missouri State Plan: The section of the

state plan on Nuclear Civil Planning (NCP) requests that local governments

identify handicapped individuals in their jurisdictions and identify their transportation problems related to evacuation.

0 University of Omaha, Community

Action Social Services (CASS) has done some work in this area. o National Council on the Aging (NCOA): NCOA held a planning meeting on the

elderly and emergencies about a year

ago. o Buffalo, New York, has a disaster plan

for the elderly and the handicapped which is primarily a snow disaster plan. o Minneapolis, Minnesota: A develop- mental disabilities group (contact: Doris Harr) has done some work in the area of the developmentally disabled and emergencies.

0 Lincoln, Nebraska: The Lincoln

Disaster Plan has provisions for the mentally retarded

.

o National Institute of Mental Health: There is research being conducted under

Disaster Act funds on mental health aggravated by disasters (including effects on people of psycho-pharmaceuticals). The contact person is Dr. Frederickson, Disaster Branch, NIMH.

o Almost every Federal agency has a limited disaster branch. Efforts should be made to identify what each of these

isolated branches is doing.

From: Fire Control Digest, Oct. 1979 (Appendix A cont'd) lAFC TO SURVEY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

The International Association of Fire Chiefs

has been awarded a contract by the U.S. Defense

Civil Preparedness Agency to identify the extent

of involvement, cooperation and success between

fire chiefs and emergency preparedness directors

in the development and operation of disaster contingency plans.

The DCPA contract to the lAFC follows President Carter's recent reorganization plan

establishing the new Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency (FEMA) which will consolidate

federal programs involved with preparedness,

mitigation and responses to natural and man- made disasters. Although FEMA will respond to national

disasters, the foundation for an effective and

efficient response will be made by the first responders, the local fire departments and the emergency preparedness agencies.

In any emergency or disaster incident affecting life or property, the local fire depart- ment will provide the first response and assis- tance. When the disaster incident is beyond the

capabilities of the local fire department or requires the assistance and resources of other

agencies, the local emergency preparedness agency will become involved. It is necessary,

therefore, that these functions of local government operate in a spirit of cooperation. The development of disaster contingency

plans by emergency preparedness agencies must

have input from the local fire department. In order to develop effective contingency plans, the agencies involved must have an understanding of the capabilities and preconceived ideas must be

identified and corrected. In effect, the fire department must know what can be expected from emergency preparedness agencies and contingency planners must know and understand the

capabilities of the fire department. According to the International Fire Chief Magazine, the lAFC project team will accomplish the five following tasks: 1) a survey

of the lAFC members to identify fire chief participation in emergency preparedness contin- gency planning; 2) a literature search to identify effective contingency planning models; 3) development of emergency preparedness planning

guidelines relative to fire service operations; preparation of a final report; and 5) publication

of an executive summary in the International Association of Fire Chiefs magazine. The Inter- national Fire Chief, and the United States Civil Defense Council Bulletin . Editor's Note: Individuals interested in sharing their disaster planning problems,

solutions or resource materials are urged to contact: Michael S. Hildebrand, International Association of Fire Chiefs, 1329 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. Phone: 202-833- 3^20

73
7. Appendix B From Fire Control Digest, Oct. 1979 Pre-Schoolers' Learning Aid Teaches Matches Danger

Children at the impressionable ages of three and four years can learn about match safety from a new slide program prepared by the

International Fire Service Training Association. "Matches Aren't for Children" is a series of 16 slides with a narrative on cassette tape and

includes tips on making the presentation. The

slide program uses cartoon characters to keep

the young children's attention. To order the package, contact IFSTA

Headquarters, Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma

71^071^. Phone: 't05-62'f-5723. Or, contact your

local IFSTA representative. The package costs

$20. From Fire Control Digest, Oct. 1979 "How-To" Available On Public Fire Education A new manual that addresses the problems and solutions of public apathy and ignorance towards fire is now available from the

International Fire Service Training Association.

Entitled Public Fire Education, the manual was developed to provide firefighters with basic knowledge concerning the problem of reaching

the public with educational programs.

Contributors to the text include experts in the

fields of public fire education media coordination and first aid. Fully illustrated, the 170-page manual takes a comprehensive look at the importance of planning and implementing community-wide fire education programs.

Specific age groups are the subjects of varied approaches to the problem. The book also includes program evaluation methods. Other topics addressed include seasonal programs, programming for smoke detectors,

visual aides, and resource sharing.

Editor's Note: IFSTA 606, Public Fire Education, is available at the cost of $7.00, from

Fire Protection Publications, Oklahoma State

University, Stillwater, OK 7't074. Phone: W5-

62^-5723.

Articles from Fire Control Digest reprinted with permission of the publisher.
Figure 1. MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED 3

Handicapped

I

Individuals •

Involvennent

Handicapped

Organizations

;

Facility

;

Management

:

Local

J

Government

State

:

Government

j

Federal

Government

m ^

OPERATION

FIELDS

• Aqe • • Fitness; Impairment ^ ^ —— Resident or Transient H ^

• Activities < ^

Education; Information d q

• • Risk Consciousness ^JX O

• Evacuation Plan o ^

• Emergency Personnel [Ij ^

• Evacuation Exercises + m ^

• Special Assistance ^ 2

• Volunteers =, ^

Self-defense m 2 • House Safety Regulations ^

• • w

Furnishings, Appliances ^

and Equipment • Fire Load t S ^ n

• Reaction to Fire |^ 2 2 : • Housekeeping & Maintenance 33 m

• • Clearance of Exit Ways 5 ^ • Storage Systems ^ ^

•

•

•

• •

Special Guidelines for ^ ^

V~ Compartmentation

Fire Resistance of ^

Structural Elements p

Fire Reaction of D

Design- Materials and Finishes 2

Egress Roads Horizontal ^

and Vertical Smoke Clearance Access for Fire Brigades

Fire Preventive Settings, • • Fire Protective - According to •

• •

•

Fire Resistive Impairments and Risks

Ingress Facilities — Egress

Facilities • • Evacuation Planning Guidelines • • •

All precedent items apply to

possible improvements of

existing buildings • •

Education of Architects, Engineers, Town Planners • • Code Management and Enforcement

75
PANEL ON MANAGEMENT

CHAIRWOMAN

Theresa Rosenberg, AIA

Special Office for the Handicapped

State of North Carolina

Post Office Box 26387

Raleigh, NC 27611 919-733-3901 VICE CHAIRMAN

Thomas Lillis Gallaudet College

7th & Florida Avenue, N.E. Washington, DC 20002

Harold A. Reitan

Architectural & Transportation Barriers Compliance Board Room 1113 330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20201

William 3. Tomes

Assistant Fire Marshal

San Diego Fire Department

1222 First Avenue

San Diego, California 92101 71^-236-6^95 RECORDER

Jennifer Gagnon

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 2023'f

Marc Waller Psychology Department

Davie Hall 013A Chapel Hill, NC Tim

919-966-1269

Mr. A. vanBogaert Robert Wehrli

Director General Department of Housing <5c Urban

Ministerie van Nationale Development

Opvoeding en Cultuur 7th & D Streets, S.W.

B-lO'fO Brussels Washington, DC 20^10

2 de Lalaingstraat 28 202-755-7366 Belgium

Alex R. Cunningham

Director, California Office of Emergency Services Post Office Box 9577 Sacramento, CA 95823

916-^21-if990 Ext. 201

Arnold Gangnes, AIA

620 Vance Building

Seattle, WA 98101 206-62^^-7515 Edwina Juillet Waynesboro Community Hospital

501 Oak Avenue

Waynesboro, Virginia 22980

Vernon L. Nickel, MD

Director, Rehabilitative Engineering Research and Development Service (153) Veterans Administration

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20420

202-389-5177

76
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held at The National Bureau of Standards 26-29 November 1979 PANEL ON EMERGENCY SERVICES

17 December 1979

1. Introduction

This report presents the results of the Emergency Services Panel, part of a Symposium

on Fire Safety and the Handicapped, held on 26-29 November 1979 in Washington, D.C. The Emergency Services Panel was one of 6 such

panels at the conference, whose purpose it was to develop a basic document, and to provide future

direction in the field of fire safety for handi- capped individuals. Panel discussions focused on

the development of fire-safe environments and emergency procedures in buildings for those people with physical, sensory or mental disabilities. Participants in this panel felt that its role was to identify emergency services' roles, consi- dering how these were related to topics being

discussed in the other panels. The panelists adhered to this for the most part, with 3 major

ideas emerging as basic to the 2-days' discussion:

1) the rights of disabled* (physically or mentally) individuals to the same

fire protection as the able-bodied

population. The point was made

that while disabled people should not

The panel preferred the term "disabled" to "handicapped". A disability may or may not result

in a handicap, depending on a variety of factors, including environmental factors, found in a fire emergency. The term "handicapped" is considered by some to be demeaning and inaccurate.

receive preferential treatment in a

fire situation where everyone

requires rescue, they should certainly not receive less attention and protection. They must have the same

opportunities that able-bodied people have to notify the fire department,

etc.; this is where a great deal of work is required, in making those

opportunities equal to those of the able-bodied population.

2) the importance of pre-planning on the

part of emergency forces cannot be overemphasized, particularly with

respect to life safety and the

disabled.

3) all of the recommendations of this panel must begin with the statement

of our assumption that buildings are designed properly in terms of fire safety, though such is obviously not the case now. At the beginning of the meeting, there was some discussion about providing definitions of terms used by the panel throughout the meeting. A list of those most frequently used follows:

disabled: a disabled person may or may not be

handicapped, depending on a variety of factors which are present in a fire emergency. To some,

the use of the word "handicapped" is distasteful, demeaning, and inaccurate, while the term

"disabled" is far more descriptive. emergency services: emergency services are

those services which are performed to terminate any immediate threat to life and property. In this panel, this was interpreted with regard to fire 77
threats, and the Fire Department was used

consistently as representative of emergency

services.

assist, evacuate, rescue; these are three terms

customarily used by the Fire Department to distinguish among different types of activity required to handle a fire emergency. "Assist" implies building occupant cooperation among

themselves; "evacuate" requires the cooperation

of the building occupants with the Fire Depart- ment; and "rescue" means that the Fire Depart- ment is in control of the situation, and the occupants are completely unable to help themselves. stationary disability: this term was used to describe those people who are incapable of indepen- dent movement, or self-exiting, during a fire, and

therefore require special assistance from the Fire Department.

Throughout the course of the meeting, panelists were not restricted to discussion of a single building type. It was agreed that responses of emergency services are scaled not only to the magnitude of the emergency itself, but to the

building's structure and occupancy type as well. The discussion was structured according to the following topics: identification; pre-planning;

responsibility; communications; education; and recommendations. This report presents the meeting results in that order.

2. Identification The first topic to come under discussion was

the identification of disabled individuals and their locations in a community. Initially, there was some strong disagreement among panel members.

Those who opposed identifying where disabled

individuals live did so for the following reasons: o The fire department is obliged to rescue everyone on an equal basis. Disabled

persons should not be identified because manpower necessary to fight the fire will be diverted first to the identified person, and maybe not to the area of greatest

need.

0 Numerous security problems can arise from marking the home of a disabled

person; thieves have, in the past, found

such homes easy targets. 0 Many disabled people are now being absorbed into the so-called "mainstream"

of life. There is a greater and greater

variety of activities in which they are

participating. Such identification could be construed as an invasion of privacy, a

trespassing on the feeling that disabled

individuals do not wish to be singled out from the majority of the population. o It is doubtful that the mandatory

registration of disabled individuals with

the fire department would result in in- creased effectiveness of rescue. o How does the service which the fire department provides for the disabled

differ from ordinary work with people of

all ages, sizes, states of mind, etc.? Those participants who favored the identifi- cation of disabled individuals supported their position with the following statements:

o The fire department needs to have this information in order to complete successful pre-planning efforts. These would

include the distribution of manpower and

decisions on methods of evacuation and equipment to be used. o Fire situations are usually considered to be full of surprises; the job of the fire department is made easier if the number

of surprises is minimized.

o If disabled individuals are included with

the community, it is respectful of their rights as members of the community to identify them in the pre-planning process. Therefore, a disabled person has a

responsibility to let the fire department know if they will need special care at the time of the emergency, and immediately

afterwards. The fire department also has a responsibility to let the disabled know

what they can do to help themselves. At one end of the spectrum, then, is the

desire of disabled individuals for anonymity; at the other is the fire department's desire for information on locations of those requiring

special attention for long periods of time. Up to this point, all fire department identifi- cation systems have been voluntary, and only

certain departments have them. For example,

the Huntington Beach, California Fire Department seeks out information on locations

of disabled individuals when doing their preplanning, although people do not have to be

included if they do not wish to be.

It was recommended by the panel that fire departments should compile these data on

stationary disabilities, build them into their preplanning programs, and maintain the security of those files. It was also recommended that some

kind of locating device ("beeper") be developed

for use on the person or his wheelchair, to avoid 78
the problems created by "on-the-scene absence"

of the identified person.

3. Pre-Planning

Pre-planning for fire emergencies, as one of the panel's major topic areas, seemed to recur as an underlying theme in most of the other topical

discussions. Its importance in dealing with fires in a general sense cannot be underestimated, but its importance in fire safety for the disabled is crucial. It is estimated that less than 5% of the

buildings in this country have been pre-planned by

local fire departments, but the figures are on the

rise. First of all, pre-planning helps to remove the element of surprise in combating a burning

building. What is important to remember is that

in many fire situations there can be a fatal flaw, even if that particular building is well-designed. Frequently the flaws are aggravated by the

incompatibility of the firefighting force with the

building. These incompatibilities can be mini- mized through pre-planning. Pre-planning requires the cooperation and involvement of both the building manager and its occupants. The pre-plan must include information on what the fire department can expect, what

actions occupants should take, and what role building management must play. The department

is then able, in the event of an emergency, to make decisions regarding adequate manpower, the

level of service required, how to manage the rescue operations on the scene, and the type of response necessary. In cases where there are no

pre-plans and the department is unfamiliar with

the building, evacuation must occur. Most codes

currently in existence are predicated on evacuation, although some new buildings are built with

areas of refuge. Recommendations from the panel in the area of pre-planning include the following:

1. Building plans can be produced which include all the information

necessary to the fire department. These can then be reduced or computerized for use in the engine companies and at the alarm centers.

2. Data identifying the locations of stationary disabled individuals can

be compiled and filed in a rolodex

for use in the engine companies (see section on Identification).

3. Pre-planning should involve building management and the building occupants to a much greater extent.

if. Building inspections by the fire department should occur more

frequently.

5. Fire departments should make use of the National Fire Reporting System,

a databank which is in development,

with information on buildings and

their occupants, and categories of

fire intervention worked out.

6. For building types housing transient occupants (hotels, etc.), a small system should be developed which

could record the locations of disabled individuals in the building, and which could be kept at the front

desk.

7. Pre—plans should always be rehearsed by the occupants with the

fire department.

^. Responsibility Aside from the ever-growing consideration

of liabilities and lawsuits, there is a great need

to clarify the nature of fire department responsibility and fix the decision points needed for a sound approach to the problem.

Classically, if simplistically, the fire depart- ment is supposed to keep the city from burning down; nowadays, one tries to confine the fire to a narrower area, but the programs and decisions remain very much the same. Operationally, other occupants "assist" the disabled; fire department personnel lead an "evacuation"; and

only fire department personnel perform "rescues"

in places others cannot go, i.e., just outside the flame area. Thus, the fire itself "decides" who

gets what attention by forcing that decision on the fire officer in charge; after the alarm is sounded, nobody receives preferential treatment

by virtue of physical or mental condition, but

only by virtue of their fire location. Thus the question of moral responsibility is overtaken by events, and the skills of the rescuer determine who is actually saved, particularly when complex tasks such as unhooking people from life-support machines are involved. There

is probably a moral obligation to be sure that the

disabled individuals who are evacuated are not

left to fend for themselves, since their potential

for coping when abandoned on the sidewalk can

be notably less than that of able-bodied people in the same situation. In Newark, New Jersey, the

fire department's community relations bureau

provides this support for all fire victims, but many other communities have no such pre-plans.

79
Moral responsibility toward the disabled has one real and trying aspect: by failing to provide them with the opportunity to do things to save

themselves, we may in fact be giving them less and not "equal" service. Equal service is the

overall intent, and indeed the legal requirement. Other legal responsibilities of the fire depart- ment vary with local ordinances and with fire department makeup. For example, some large

cities such as Kansas City, Missouri, do not

include medical or ambulance service. Thus fire departments may or may not interact with

building management, hospitals, or other seg- ments. However, at the fire scene the fire officer is everywhere unquestionably in charge. (Some hazardous materials events involve federal and state forces, and some jurisdictional questions can surface as a result.) Fire departments are daily confronted with a

population mix that includes the permanently

disabled as well as the temporarily disabled, (such as drunk, drugged, in casts, infants, smoke

inhalation of victim, etc.). Yet the expectancy

of such problems varies from occupancy to occupancy; one expects to move disabled people

during a hospital fire, but how can one be

specific as to expectations at a department

store? Pre-plans can pay off only insofar as forecasts are accurate and training is designed to match the needs. A good example of awareness

is Seattle, Washington, where engine companies

inspect "night hotels" every evening. On the other side is the possibly disastrous evacuation of a hospital on the decision of an administrator who does not wait to consult the fire depart- ment.Many factors are rooted in sound building

design. Where good design and good plans exist, chances for survival are greatly enhanced.

Retrofitting old buildings remains a touchy subject, yet fire departments can and must insist on involvement in all plan approval processes, for new or old construction. Local evacuation plans are worthy of study especially where successful operations have been carried out. Recent

examples are the hurricane evacuations of Miami

Beach, Florida, with tens of thousands of elderly, and Mississaugua, Ontario, where over 200,000

people were moved to avoid a railway incident. An NFPA report on the latter is expected soon;

it should show percentages of disabled persons

involved.

5. Communication

This section is oriented principally toward hardware and systems, rather than voice contact

or interpersonal matters. The intent is not to downplay the frequent need for one-to-one visual or voice contact, but to cover technological

approaches of possible utility to emergency

services. No concepts were advanced that appeared beyond the scope or capabilities of current technology. Emphasis must be on early notification,

for the time between receipt of alarm and arrival by the fire department at the scene is not readily shortened. Mechanical means not dependent on human intervention seem best, but suffer from

false alarm problems. A slightly less reliable but more credible system involves a single human act: pushing a button that sends a coded alarm. In either case, a manual backup or verification capability is needed. (See earlier section on

"Identification" for a discussion of voluntary

participation by the disabled in fire department

notification programs). Special techniques are

available for the deaf or those with speech impediments; an example is the Las Vegas Fire Department's automatically dialed, taped message. Closed-circuit TV is useful for non-fire and

non-burglar reporting, as for invalids. The coaxial cable systsm connected with Cable TV in Woodlands, Texas and the smoke alarms in Homewood,

Florida are examples of programs developed by

the U.S. Fire Administration under its Automatic

Residential Alarm System (ARAS) program. While

relatively expensive, these systems apply current technology and often piggyback onto other sys- tems (such as Cable TV). On another level, the disabled must be able to ask for specific help. This might be from a remote location or in direct personal contact. For example, many leg-injury-only wheelchair people can move faster than the able-bodied, but many

need help getting into their chairs and they may

need help in communicating that need.

Finally, there arise situations in which the

disabled must be sought out, perhaps in a noisy or smoky environment. For this purpose a number of beepers are available, and development of a small two-way transponder is feasible. Such a device in wristwatch size could be forecast to cost less than

$200, and would require a larger interrogator

device, perhaps as a fire department backpack

unit. When emergency forces have been

dispatched, current practice frequently calls for transmission of details as to mission location and

other circumstances by voice radio to the officer

in charge, or a first-fire-area reference file may

be in the vehicle. No new technology is needed to allow the update of this data, which in itself reduces the need for transmission of specifics when the alarm is tuned in. One notes, however,

that overuse of electronic devices is to be avoided

for both operational and fiscal considerations. Despite all advances in hardware, there will always remain a certain need to talk to people in 80
oerson or on the phone. Even the able-bodied

can encounter difficulties here because of language barriers. Some fire departnnents have

cards at control centers and on the apparatus

with key words in languages prevalent in their operating area, as well as sign language cards. If a fire department contemplates starting such a program, good data on language incidence can be

obtained from the public school system. The items discussed above range in cost from

nothing (except for time expended) to facilitate interagency cooperation and information flow, to perhaps billions of dollars for personal hardware.

Federal funds are likely to be devoted to development efforts, but deployment funding would likely be limited to prototypes and validations. Some increase in training costs can be

anticipated if fire departments are to upgrade

their ability to deal with situations involving the

disabled, but the increased quality of perfor- mance would offset this readily. For expensive systems, such as automated

alarms, computer-assisted dispatch, or locational transponders, a regional approach can reduce

costs to a given entity. Use of the system by all emergency service components (fire, police, rescue, etc.) also produces cost savings. Adaptation of existing systems costs least of all, and

has the added advantage of being feasible now.

Preparation and use of language books need not await program decisions or huge appropriations. There exists a wealth of specific upgrading programs that any fire department can start now

at minimum costs; only initiative or motivation may be lacking.

6. Education and Training Three groups of individuals require education and training for dealing with the disabled in fire emergencies: building managers, firefighters, and the disabled persons themselves. The

absence, or shallowness, of education and

training of any one of these groups can create problems which increase the risks to the disabled under fire conditions. Building managers must recognize that dis- abled people may suffer greater risk in fire situations, and must be able to assist the responding emergency forces on the scene by

supplying a list of disabled persons in the

building, their locations, and, if at all possible,

their disabilities. Various disabilities, their combinations, and degrees of disability present a continuum from little or no risk to that which is considerably above average, and from little or no

required assistance to total help. This information is crucial for the fire officer in charge of the responding force to make the

necessary decisions to effect a successful operation.Building managers must also be educated to realize that the responding emergency force will operate in the most efficient manner if there has been effective pre-planning with good personal communication between the fire department and

the building management. Managers must also be aware of their responsibility, moral or otherwise, to provide services to safeguard and assist the disabled occupying and exiting the building, once the building has been made accessible to them.

Logically, the fire service is the instrument

by which building management personnel should be educated in these areas, since the fire service

will be the first to respond in case of a fire. If a

fire department has undertaken such an educational campaign, they will be familiar with the

building, its built-in protection, the emergency

plan in effect, and the management personnel with whom they will be working at the incident. Proper building maintenance is also important; no matter how well-designed a building may be,

it becomes useless if not maintained properly. These types of information are crucial to the fire officer's appraisal of the situation, and subse- quent decisions. Fire service personnel must be trained in prefire planning activities, and educated in the

usefulness of such plans in carrying out efficient operations. Built-in fire protection features must be thoroughly understood and pinpointed in the building if they are to be used efficiently. There must also be extensive training in recognition and handling techniques for the disabled. Training should also be required in post-evacuation care. Both disabled and fire department people are

not ordinarily aware of the possible risks involved in buildings, and possible actions that

will be taken to help them. Also, most rehabili- tation programs are not linked to where one lives or works. If possible, a basic program should be developed for all disabled, regardless of the type

of building in which they live or work, setting out

the risks involved and self-help actions that can

be taken to mitigate risks and get assistance. The decision on the selection by a disabled person of an apartment should take into consi- deration the risk involved as a result of such

selection. The decision should be made on the view afforded, price, parking, neighborhood,

safety, and other considerations such as egress

paths. In too many cases, the potential risk is not considered, even if known. With proper

education, disabled people will be in better

positions to make decisions which will enhance

81
their safety prospects and ability to help themselves and assist those who must aid them.

Educational efforts for the disabled should be

shared, involving the fire department and

rehabilitation or social service groups. The fire department should undertake the training of rehabilitation personnel, so they in turn can educate the disabled in the realities of the risks they face, and actions that can be taken in a fire emergency.

All three groups, building managers, disabled persons and fire service personnel, must be aware of the total situation the disabled face when they enter any building. The safety of the

disabled, and those around them, will be dependent to a large extent on the level of this understanding, and the actions that each group

takes in a fire situation as a result of it.

powers granted them in closing down

buildings where there is a severe life hazard, even though the building at one time was built in compliance

with existing codes.

6. Fire departments should do things immediately which are not costly to enabel the disabled to seek help. The community must be made aware

that service for the disabled is available.

7. Building managers, the disabled, and

fire service personnel must be edu- cated to recognize the risks the

disabled are exposed to, and means

of assisting the disabled in the fire situation.

7. Recommendations What follows here is a list of recommendations which were made during the course of the

discussion. We have grouped them together for reasons of simplification. They are as follows:

1. It is hoped that this emphasis on

disabled needs will shed light on

the existing inadequacies in building construction and provide

the mechanisms for correction and

retrofit for reasonable harmony

with the state-of-the-art of fire protection to benefit all persons.

2. Fire department personnel must demand involvement in the design

of new buildings and the retrofit of

old ones.

3. Where a retrofit program for a

building is considered expensive,

alternative methods must be developed to address the problem. These methods should then be ranked in importance, to encourage

building owners to do what is necessary for fire safety.

i^. Pre-fire planning should be under- taken by the fire service at all buildings requiring such plans. It is probably the most important and

effective way to deal with the

disabled in fire situations. Preplans should be rehearsed in exercises involving all segments of the system.

5. Fire departments should consider making greater use of the police

8. Fire departments should compile

data on the disabled, and build such data into their pre-fire plans. The

fire department must maintain

security of such data, so that they do not get into unauthorized hands.

9. Identification of disabled people for

fire department purposes should be

voluntary, preferably after an

educational campaign.

10. Fire departments must be educated

to realize that the disabled person can be found anywhere in the environment, and educated to handle

the situation efficiently.

11. Technology currently available must

be placed into more widespread use, particularly where the disabled are

involved, to reduce the time between the inception of the fire and transmission to the fire depart- ment.

12. Fire department personnel should be educated to bridge communication

barriers in carrying out rescue

operations.

13. A study manual should be developed

for fire services personnel and the

disabled outlining the methods that can be used to assist and safeguard

the disabled in the built environment. The recommendations for fire departments and their interaction with the disabled should be tested under real-world conditions through

the use of demonstration grants. 82
8. References

During the course of the meeting, several docu- ments were cited which were useful. The list follows:

1. Code for Safety to Life from Fire in Buildings and Structures, NFPA 101-1976 , Ch. 17, "Operating Features." Boston: National Fire Protection Association, 1976.

2. 3. V. Fechter and E. M. Robertson, Catalog of Security Equipment, National Bureau of Standards SP 480-35. November 1978.

>. Health Care Emergency Preparedness. NFPA

Manual 3M. Boston, National Fire Protection

Association, 1975. International Conference on Firesafety in High-Rlse Buildings, April 12-16, Airlie House,

Warrenton, Va. Sponsored by the Public

Buildings Service, The General Services Administration. May 1971. GPO No. 2204-0005.

5. NFPA 101, 1980 edition, will include a section on disabled persons in fire emergencies.

6. ARAS Report. U.S. Fire Administration. In preparation.

83
PANEL ON EMERGENCY SERVICES CHAIRMAN

James W. Kerr

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Director, Technical Hazards

1725 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20if72 202-653-7860 VICE CHAIRMAN

Joseph Redden

Director, Public Protection Division National Fire Protection Association ^70 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, MA 02210 617-^82-8755 RECORDER

Gretchen G. Bank

Project Manager AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washingotn, DC 20006

202-785-783^^ Howard D. Boyd

Consultant

'f018 Lealand Lane

Nashville, TN 3720^*

Philip C. Favro

California State Fire Marshal

7171 Bowling Drive, Suite 800 Sacramento, CA 95823 Robert L. Rosenberry

Director, Emergency Planning Veterans Administration

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20^^20 202-389-2107

David Hammerman, P.E. Chief Fire Protection Engineer Maryland Fire Marshal's Office

301 W. Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201 301-383-2520

Robert J. Madden

Executive Director

Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association 2300 Ninth Street, South

Arlington, VA 2220^* Rexford Wilson, President

Firepro, Inc. Post Office Box 1^5 Wellesley Hills, MA 02181 617-237-1153

John Brenner

Director of Safety & Security Peninsula General Hospital

100 E. Carroll Street

Salisbury, MD 21801

301-5^^6 6W0

Donald D. Flinn General Manager

International Association of Fire Chiefs

1329 18th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Peggy Smith, Consultant

Federal Emergency Management Agency Emergency Preparedness Planning for the Disabled

1103 P Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Howard Teich Law Offices of Stutman and Rothberg

150 E. 58th Street New York, NY 10022

212-^21-^^0^0 George Gray, FAIA

Rutherford Road

West Sand Lake, NY 12196 518-674-3^^82

8^^
CLARENCE L. NIOCDEMJS

Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant

625 Doyle Lane

Dixon, California 95620

(916) 678-3661

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234 Dear Dr. Levin: Below are my cxrauents on the report of the PANEL CN EMERGENCY SERVICE

ACTICNS.

I find the report generally excellent. New ideas and directions for efforts in my professional area of Rehabilitation Engineering are suggested and ^predated . I have to take one exception, however. The idea that the disabled person must be "rescued" pervades this entire draft. This is an understandable attitude given the current situation with our inadequate and conflicting building codes, inadeqiiate buildings and alarm systons, etc. However, efforts must be

consciously redoubled to improve the building environment so that "rescue" is not necessarily required but is the exception. All

people, including disabled people must be provided suitable means

of independent or self actualized escape or protection through

planning, building design and code development. "Rescvie" would then occur only when these efforts breakdown, are ill conceived or

insufficient to match the oaergency.

I guess what I am trying to say is this:

1. A person viho is disabled can do a great deal to help him/herself

in an emergency, if the means is available.

2. It appcEirs to be an ineffecient use of onergency service manpower

to plan to "rescue" all the disabled people in a given situation, especially when they can, in most cases, help thonselves.

3. Focus the "rescue" efforts on those who are totally incapacitated through injury or other trauma during the emergency. Those vAio are

slightly injured will be much more able to help thanselves through building design consideration that provided for the so called

"handicapped" people.

In other words, when the building fire emergency needs of this supposed "anall group of disabled people" are met, the needs of many others of

vis "ablebodied" people will also be met. This includes the rescuer \^o

becomes disoriented in the anoke environment, but locates an exit

December 30, 1979 ref : Conference on Fire

Dr. Bernard Levin United States Department

of CcBEierce

Safety for the

Handicapped, November 26-29. 1979.

85
because of the strobing lights plax^ed there to aid visually and hearing impaired persons.

It appears to me that the people involved in this Panel were predoninately realists, as reflected in the draft, and rightly so, I urge the thought of inprovement of things beyond the mere hope of

just a successful "rescue" however.Respectfully,

Clarence L. Nicod<

Meinber of the Board, National Task Force on Life Safety

and the Handicapped.

CL2^:sgo

86
WORKSHOP 1: CODES AND STANDARDS

Reported by Sharon L. Machida AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

1. Introduction

This paper presents the results of the Codes and Standards Workshop on Life Safety and the Handicapped held on 13-14 August 1979

in Washington, D.C. This was one of six workshops convened by the AIA Research

Corporation and the Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped for the purpose of developing work documents for a November

1979 Symposium on Life Safety and the HandicapPed. The workshop participants are

listed on page At this workshop, participants concentrated on the adequacies, inadequacies, and the potential of codes and standards to ensure the life safety, particularly the fire safety, of handicapped individuals. The general

questions which were addressed in the workshop

were:

I. What codes and standards have an impact on life safety for the handi- capped?

IL What are the tenets of a philosophy which could form the basis of codes and standards that would be adequately responsive to the life safety needs

of the handicapped?

IIL What problem areas can codes and

standards reasonably be expected to deal with? What problem areas do

they already address? To what

extent?

IV. What directions should efforts to alter codes and standards take if they are to become more responsive to issues re- lated to life safety and the handicapped?

The following discussion presents the responses

of the workshop participants to these questions.

2. Relevant Codes and Standards

Several codes and standards have an impact

on the handicapped in life-threatening

situations. A few of them currently contain

specific provisions on life safety for the handicapped; some of them are being revised to incorporate provisions for handicapped. These

relevant codes and standards are: o The Four Model Building Codes:

the Standard Building Code of the Southern Building Code Congress (SBCC) 1979; the Uniform Building Code of the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) 1979; the BOCA Basic

Building Code (Building Officials and Code Administrators) 1978; and the National Building Code, AIA 1976. These codes include

sections on accessibility provisions, but no life safety provisions which are directed at the handi- capped. These include Fire Alarm Standards (Vol. 7) and

the Fire Prevention Code (Vol. 12). o NFPA 101 Life Safety Code: the current NFPA 101 does not

specifically mention the handicapped in its provisions, but

the 1980 edition will have specific provisions for the handicapped.

o The California, Illinois, and North

Carolina State Building Codes:

these three codes are probably the

state-of-the-art in current code

87
treatment of egress identification through tactile means.

o The Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) Minimum Property

Standards (MPS) for various

building types. o ANSI Accessibility Standard: this standard addresses fire safety for handicapped individuals only in its warning system provisions, which

primarily address the problems of individuals confined to wheelchairs.

3. Codes and Standards Philosophy There exists at present no consensus on a philosophy that should underlie codes and stan- dards responsive to the life safety needs of handicapped individuals. Some of the issues identified as warranting consideration in the development of such a philosophy include: o Nondiscrimination in safety measures (identical safety). Safety measures should be the same for both handicapped and able-bodied

individuals. o Equivalent safety. The handi- capped should be as safe from life- threatening conditions as the ablebodied, although there may be

different strategies for providing

safety for the handicapped. o No detriment to the freedom of the general public. Life safety measures for the handicapped

should not increase life safety

threats to the able-bodied.

Instead, measures for handicapped

individuals should be designed to increase the general public safety. o Highest risk/least ability criterion. Safety measures might be designed

to provide adequate protection for

individuals with the least capability

for self-protection. o Right to risk. Handicapped indivi- duals should be as free to accept

risk as their able-bodied counterparts. Denying the handicapped

access to facilities open to the general public is unacceptable as a safety measure.

o Right to information. Handicapped

individuals should have access to the information necessary to determine their level of risk, in light of

their specific handicaps, in different building types.

It was agreed by workshop participants that each of the above statements of philosophy is valid and important in one sense or another. It was also noted, however, that conflicts exist, both among these statements themselves and with

other social concerns.

t^. Problem Areas

Problems related to codes and standards

responsive to life safety needs were identified in a number of areas: In the following listing, problems with higher priority are preceded by an

asterisk. General Problems:

*1. There is a lack of data, in a form useful

for making code decisions, that relate the disabilities associated with specific handicaps to various building types and

uses. *2. There is no distinctive data base on the

actual experiences of handicapped indi- viduals in emergencies.

*3. There is limited information on the

abilities and disabilities of handicapped

individuals in using building safeguards and safety features designed for the

able-bodied.

*4. There is a tendency, in codemaking

bodies, to categorize all handicaps to- gether, impeding efforts to resolve problems related to specific handicaps.

5. There is no clear philosophy apparent in current codes and standards in relation to ensuring the safety of handicapped

individuals.

6. Codes and standards have historically been based on data on the abilities of the able-bodied. The exceptions to this have been life safety provisions designed for hospitals and other

facilities devoted specifically to the

disabled. Information Transfer Problems:

*1. Current modes of occupant notification of initial threat are ineffective for individuals with certain handicaps.

*2. Current modes for occupant location of

exits, areas of refuge, and other safety
features are ineffective for indivi- duals with certain handicaps.

3. Handicapped individuals are often not provided with information needed to evaluate personal risk in terms of their particular disabilities and the

safety measures of the buildings they

use.

It. Current practices do not provide handicapped individuals with a means

of obtaining assistance during an emergency- Movement Problems:

*1. Handicapped individuals can have

problems moving from a threatening

situation because they are obstructed by certain conditions or elements

that become barriers because of their specific handicaps. These are

conditions or elements which are not

currently addressed in relevant code

provisions and include floor coverings, grates, mats, hardware,

illumination, sills, protruding objects, and level changes.

*2. The length of time that it takes a handicapped individual to move away

from a threatening situation can be seen as a function of their particular

disability. No current code provisions take into account this type of time and distance information on handi- capped persons.

3. Handicapped individuals are often

incapable of using conventional exit systems. The use of stairs as emergency exits in multi-story buildings does not satisfy the exit needs of individuals with certain handicaps.

I*. Traditional elevator standards pre- clude the use of elevators by either the handicapped or the able-bodied in emergencies.

5. Certain configurations and sizes of corridors can create exit problems

for handicapped individuals. This is also a problem area for the ablebodied; it is important for both the handicapped and the able-bodied to be able to immediately grasp a sense

of direction when exiting a corridor

in an emergency.

6. The size of door openings and opening

factors such as hardware can create

exit problems for handicapped indivi- duals. Protection problems:

1. The disabilities of certain handi- capped individuals may force them to seek safety within the building rather than trying to exit. Current

practices may not provide adequate

safety for these individuals. In providing areas of refuge from fire and smoke it is particularly important

that the individuals expected to use such areas have confidence in their safety. Search and Rescue Problems The problems identified in this section are probably not addressable by codes and standards. They are included here as related issues that

require further investigation as to their impact

on codes and standards.

1. In many building types emergency

service personnel are limited in their

ability to identify the presence and

location of handicapped individuals in an emergency.

2. Certain conventional rescue techni- ques (e.g., the use of aerial ladders, some carrying techniques) can pose problems in rescuing handicapped

individuals.

3. The location and type of emergency

warning systems may hamper or preclude their use by certain handicapped individuals.

4. There is a lack of consensus on the value of the use of fire extinguishers by either the handicapped or able- bodied individuals.

5. Conclusion

In their discussions on general recommendations for codes and standards for life safety and the handicapped, the workshop participants reached consensus on the following:

1. No means of egress for the handicapped should be either exclusive to them or of a character that would not meet

code standards for the general

population. If it is determined

that different egress strategies

for the handicapped would be 89
beneficial for both the handicapped and the able-bodied these potential egress strategies nriust be developed

to fulfill all requirements for acceptable egress.

2. Codes and standards should be

cost-sensitive and should not

innpose undue burden on society's resources.

3. Codes and standards should be performance-based and readily amendable to take advantage of technological and other advances

in life safety.

^. To be credible, codes and

standards should be based on adequate, reliable data. At the same time, knowledge gaps

should not be allowed to unduly impede the development of useful codes and standards.

5. Codes and standards for handicapped individuals should be developed as integral parts of general life provisions. There

should be no separate life safety codes and standards for the handicapped.

6. Codes and standards must be

enforceable to be effective.

7. Codes and standards are most

suited to controlling physical elements of buildings and other

aspects of the built environment.

Educational programs, manage- ment practices, and other areas

affecting the life safety needs of the handicapped are more

efficiently dealt with by other means.

90
PARTICIPANTS -CODES AND STANDARDS WORKSHOP

James Reid Dowling (Chairman)

Director Codes and Standards Division The American Institute of Architects

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

State of New Jersey 363 West State Street Post Office Box 2768

Trenton, NJ 08625

Paul Staudt, Jr., R.A.

Assistant Chief Bureau of Construction Code Enforcement

J. Armand Burgun, AIA

Rogers, Butler, Burgun and Shahine

521 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 Bruce Trant, P.E. Executive Director Council of American Building

Officials 560 Georgetown Building 2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20007 Howard D. Boyd

Consultant and Past President

Fire Marshals Association of North America

i^Oli Lealand Lane

Nashville, TN 3720^

John G. Degenkolb, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer and Consultant

1720 Chevy Knoll Drive

Glendale, CA 91206

Charles Everly, P.E. Director Department of Building and Mechanical Inspections City Hall Post Office Box 178 Alexandria, VA 22313

Earle W. Kennett Programs Director AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Harold E. Nelson Head

Design Concepts Research

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 2023^*

Theresa Rosenberg, AIA

Special Office for the Handicapped

Engineering and Building Codes Division North Carolina Department of Insurance

Post Office Box 26387

Raleigh, NC 27611

91
NOTES

92
WORKSHOP 2: EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING

Reported by Sharon L. Machida AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

1. Introduction The Emergency Preparedness Planning Workshop was the second in a series of six Workshops on Life Safety and the Handicapped

convened by the AIA Research Corporation, the Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped

and the National Bureau of Standards. These workshops were sponsored by the U.S. Fire Administration, and constitute a preliminary

stage in the development of a comprehensive

policy to ensure the life safety, particularly the

fire safety, of handicapped individuals. The charge before this workshop was to concentrate on the availability, development, and use of emergency preparedness plans to

assist in the protection and removal of handi- capped individuals during emergencies. Similar

to the other workshops, major problem areas were identified within emergency preparedness

planning related to the handicapped population, and then these areas were ranked in order of

priority. The topic of emergency preparedness

planning differed from the other workshop topics

in that it is more inclusive; instead of focusing

on fires in different types of buildings, this workshop covered different time frames in different types of emergencies/disasters, from

earthquakes to fires to nuclear disasters. The participants at the workshop believed it axiomatic that every individual in the U.S. today

has a right to equal protection in an emergency

regardless of race, national origin, age, sex or handicapping condition. The handicapped population (approximately 35 million people) have

special needs for their protection, and emergency preparedness planning must recognize and

deal with those needs. Therefore, the partici- pants felt that this workshop should be concerned

with assessing the needs of the handicapped

population in relation to emergency preparedness

planning and developing considerations to accommodate those needs. The philosophy underlying

workshop deliberations is summarized as follows:

1. Handicapped individuals have a

right to protection in emergencies-

/disasters.

2. Handicapped individuals have

specialized needs in emergencies/disasters.

3. Emergency preparedness planning

should recognize the needs of the handicapped and plan actions that promote the participation of this segment of the population.

In attempting to isolate specific problem

areas in emergency preparedness planning for handicapped individuals, it was felt that the

following elements be considered:

o Type of emergency/disaster;

o Scale of emergency/disaster;

o Preventive actions; o Response actions. Although there are differences in meaning and

scale between the terms "emergency" and "dis- aster," they are used almost interchangeably in this paper to mean any situation that precludes

the use of normal methods and necessitates immediate action. The workshop participants defined prior to identification of problem areas, the major steps

in emergency preparedness planning as:

I. Identification

II. Warning

in. Rescue

93
IV. Evacuation of time, money, and human and physical resources, these are the problem areas that should be concentrated on first.

VI. Emergency

VII. Recovery

In a later section, the discussion of problem

areas is organized according to these steps in the emergency preparedness planning process. Over the course of the workshop, several ways of organizing a presentation of the problem

areas in emergency preparedness planning, and

several ways of locating "voids" (areas that need

to be addressed before solutions can be formulated) were suggested. Three of these matrixtype systems of organizing information are pre- sented below. These organization techniques may be helpful in the November Conference on

Fire Safety for the Handicapped deliberations and in future efforts, but workshop participants

felt that there was not enough time to make use

of them within the constraints of the workshop. The following considerations related to scale

of emergency/disaster were taken into account

as problem areas were identified. As the size of the emergency/disaster increases:

1. Availability of specialized forces

decreases.

2. Alarms become less effective.

3. Preplanning becomes more crucial.

^. Relocation becomes more likely; the complexity of relocation increases; relocation areas become more dis- tant; support systems become more

impersonal.

5. Credibility in plans decreases.

6. Emergence becomes a factor of greater importance.

7. Logistical problems increase in different ways (time, quantity, dis- tance, communication).

8. The larger the emergency/disaster,

the less people are concerned about

pre-planning and preparations (e.g., nuclear disasters). The following section presents the problem

areas identified by workshop participants. The

asterisk marking some of the problem areas

indicates that the problem area is of higher

priority. In other words, given a limited amount

2. Problem Areas

2.1 General

*1. There is a general lack

of appreciation of the need for specific consideration of the han- dicapped within emergency preparedness

planning.

*2. There exists a lack of consumer input (handi- capped individuals and

organizations) into emergency preparedness planning through

special committees

and governmental

channels.

*3. There is a general lack

of communication bet- ween the various in- terfaces (e.g., handi- capped individuals: local fire department,

local government

agency: other involved

local government

agencies, local: state, state: federal, federal: federal) in emergency

preparedness planning. With the addition of specific provisions for handicapped indivi- duals, communication becomes even more

important. There exists a general

lack of cooperation among responding agencies within emergency preparedness plans. *5. Emergency preparedness planning is by nature complex and, due in part to the different variables in- volved in different

levels of organization, not uniform. Nevertheless, there should be an emphasis on

9^
clarity and consis- tency within any

given plan. Clarity and consistency must be emphasized

in efforts to intro- duce provisions rela- ted to the handi- capped. There is a need for an adequate data base on the re- actions of handi- capped individuals during emergencies. There is, at present, no method of de- monstrating the effectiveness or the

cost benefit of handicapped provisions within emergency

preparedness plans. Responsibilities are

not always clearly defined within emergency plans

(e.g., the division of responsibility bet- ween municipal emergency medical

services and emergency services is often unclear.) Handicapped indivi- duals should be in- cluded in any practice, rehearsal or exercise of emergency procedures. There exists a general lack of credibility in the emergency pre- paredness planning

process. Greater

credibility must be

established if handi- capped provisions in existing plans are to be effective. To in- crease credibility the participation and support of the handicapped population must be en- couraged.

Evaluation techniques should be de- veloped to judge

the effectiveness and workability of handicapped provi-. sions within emergency preparedness

plans.

12. There is a lack of proper incentives

to promote the in- corporation of handicapped provisions within local emergency preparedness

plans.

13. There is no effective transfer mechanism for moving information through various

levels of govern- ment (federalstate-local).

1^. The abilities and

talents of indivi- duals with various handicaps need to be recognized and

utilized during emergencies (e.g., communication net- works already in existence within

specific handi- capped groups, through CB radios and TTYs, etc.).

13. There is a general

lack of needs as- sessment in terms

of planning for life safety and the handicapped.

16. There exists little information to dis- tinguish plans for the handicapped and for the general

public.

17. There is a lack of awareness of the importance of centralized operation and direction during emergencies.

2.2. Identification 95
*1. There is a need for systematic methods of identifying handicapped indivi- duals within a community.

*2. At present, emergency preparedness

planners do not have adequate in- formation on the

particular needs of individuals with

different types of

disabilities.

3. There is little a- wareness of the

special transportation needs of indi- viduals with certain handicaps in the event of an emergency/disaster. A system could be developed for maintaining inventories of special transports for the handicapped (vans with lifts, appropriate personnel,

buses, etc.).

i^. There is a need for development of methods for identi- fying segments of

cities and communities with high occupancy by han- dicapped indivi- duals.

5. Resources within the handicapped

population should be identified and

utilized by emergency service or- ganizations.

2.3. Warning

*1. Appropriate warning systems for in- dividuals with certain handicaps are

not in wide use; many types of those that are in use are not standardized. Examples of such warning systems are smoke detector/

strobe/vibrator sys- tems, TTY's, Micro alert devices, smoke detector/fan systems, and re- dundant adaptive system with the capacity to give specific verbal instructions.

2. There is a lack of immediate warning

identification. Warnings and alarms

could also give han- dicapped individuals some idea of what dir- ection they should take and what actions are required.

3. There is a lack of methods for verifying warnings; this may be of greater importance to han- dicapped indivi- duals than to people with greater ease of mobility. There is lack of understanding of the ramifications and

appropriateness of the time factors involved in adequately warning handi- capped individuals. Are short or long term warnings more appropriate

for certain emergencies/disasters? Do handicapped in- dividuals need more time? Do we

need intermittent

visual and audible warnings?

5. There is little in- formation on the

sensitivity of people with different kinds of handicaps

to warnings sys- tems. Considerations in this area

are: the degree of 96
immobility or de- pendence of an in- dividual may affect

his/her perception

of risk; warning

systems inherently have low tolerance

for false alarms;

the individual's perception of an emergency plan may have an effect on his/her perception of false alarms. 2A. Rescue

*l. More information needs to be dis- seminated on training in special techniques for rescuing

individuals with

certain handicaps.

2. There is a lack of knowledge on ways

in which the handi- capped individual can participate in his/her own rescue.

3. There may be a need to develop in- formation and

guidelines stressing the need to rescue handicapped indivi- duals first, depending on the emergency, the degree

of risk, and time

elements. Should handicapped indivi- duals in a given en- vironment be res- cued first—even

before the emergency is verified— because of their different time

needs in terms of rescue and evacuation?

2.5. Evacation

*1. There is a lack of transportation sys- tems specifically linked to the move- ment of individuals

with certain handicaps.

*2. There is a lack of understanding of the time needs of handicapped indivi- duals for preparation for evacuation and actual evacuation.

*3. There is a need to further identify and define alternative procedures for the evacuation of handicapped indivi- duals (e.g., buddy

systemplanned and

spontaneous). There is a lack of understanding of the types of assis- tance needed by handicapped when

evacuating.

5. There is a need to

identify community

groups and other

resources that could assist in the organized evacuation

of the handicapped.

2.6. Relocation

1. The different types

of relocation centers needed by

different groups of handicapped indivi- duals should be

identified and

appropriate actions taken to meet the

relocation needs of these groups. Considerations like size and accessibility should be considered.

*2. There is a lack of information on the care and needs of handicapped indivi- duals within relocation centers.

97
3. There is a need to investigate how the evacuation of han- dicapped indi- viduals relates to various types of non-governmental

relocation efforts such as relocation by organization

(e.g., work place, company, and

social- based organizations). The ways in which han- dicapped assocations and service organizations aid in this process should

also be investi- gated.

2.7. Emergence

*1. People with dif- ferent types of handicaps may

have different time frames for re- turning to their communities. This should be investi- gated further and

incorporated in emergency plans.

*2. The kinds of support systems needed by the han- dicapped in antici- pation of recovery

should be investi- gated.

2.8. Recovery The needs of the handicapped related to recovery will vary greatly with the type of emergency/disaster encountered. When planning for physical and social structure recovery, the needs of the handicapped and the ramifications of their return to normal life should be

considered.

3. Current Plans with Handicapped Provisions and Other Efforts During the workshop several relevant

efforts were identified. These include current

plans that incorporate provisions for the handi- capped and other efforts to address the needs of different handicapped populations in emergency

preparedness planning. These are:

o Georgia Disaster Plan: Appendix

o Missouri State Plan: The section of the state plan on Nuclear Civil Planning (NCP) requests that local governments identify handicapped

individuals in their jurisdictions and

identify their transportation problems related to evacuation.

o University of Omaha, Community

Action Social Services (CASS) has done some work in the area. o National Council on the Aging (NCOA): NCOA held a planning meeting on the elderly and emergencies about a year ago. o Buffalo, New York, has a disaster plan for the elderly and the handicapped which is primarily a snow disaster plan. o Minneapolis, Minnesota: A

developmental disabilities group

(contact: Doris Harr) has done some

work in the area of developmentally

disabled and emergencies.

o Lincoln, Nebraska: The Lincoln

Disaster Plan has provisions for the mentally retarded. o National Institute of Mental Health: There is research being conducted

under Disaster Act funds on mental

health aggravated by disasters

(including effects on people of psychopharmaceuticals). The

contact person is Dr. Frederickson,

Disaster Branch, NIMH.

o Almost every Federal agency has a

limited disaster branch. Efforts should be made to identify what

each of these isolated branches is doing.

^. Recommendations

1. Steps should be taken to influence policy decisions and

legislation to deal with the han- dicapped in disaster preparedness and emergency management.

2. Incentives should be provided to motivate and promote the in- corporation of handicapped

needs into all levels of emergency preparedness planning. It 98
is crucial that appropriate in- centives be developed to pro- mote integration of appropriate

strategies for the handicapped

into local emergency preparedness plans.

3. Lines of communcation should be developed and clearly defined between the various levels

of government in dealing with

the handicapped and emergency

preparedness planning.

k. At the Federal level, efforts should be made to develop

flexible guidelines for emergency preparedness measures

incorporating the needs of the handicapped. These flexible guidelines should be adaptable

by individual state and local governments for use in their

jurisdictions; as one of the participants said, "You give us the

skeleton, and we'll put the meat

on it." *5. Participation by special groups- -made up of representatives from governmental agencies, handicapped organizations, and

other groups—in the emergency

preparedness planning process

should be encouraged.

6. There may be a need for allocation of Federal funds for a predisaster discretionary fund for use by state governments in providing emergency services at the time of a disaster.

7. Special groups representing handicapped interests should be encouraged to develop plans and

action agendas incorporating

their needs related to emergency preparedness planning.

8. There is a need for the develop- ment of some type of vehicle(s) for delivering needs and solutions related to emergency pre- paredness planning for the han- dicapped to local governments.

9. The awareness level of the

general population in regard to emergency procedures for different types of handicapped

people should be raised.

99
Format 1. Emergency Preparedness Planning and the Handicapped

\ o c \ Sow

\ III \ LU Q. Q. Level of Organization

Existing

Methodology

and

Resources

Actions Needed

and

Potential

Resources

Exist. Act.

Need d

FACILITY** A

B

Bl A

B

Bl

ETC.

COMMUNITY A

B

Bl A

B

Bl

ETC.

REGION A

B

Bl STATE A

B

Bl FEDERAL A

B

Bl

* Emergency Preparedness Process continues with Emergency and Recovery.

** i.e., individual residences, institutions, business occupancies, etc. Variable Level A: Type of handicap (i.e., multiple, motor, visual, hearing, etc.) Variable Level B: Type of emergency/disaster (i.e., fire, flood, earthquake,

nuclear, hazardous material, terrorism, etc.) Variable Level B-] : Scale of emergency/disaster (i.e., intensity, time, distance, etc.)

100
Charts for each level of organization (Facility, Community, Regional,

State, Federal). For example:

EARTHQUAKE EXTREME

WINDS

MOTOR

MENTAL

ETC.

1. Pre-Emergency Planning (including education, prevention, training, responsibility)

2. Warning

3. Response

Format 3. Time Factors/General Functional Requirements

Time Factors PRE TRANS POST

General Functional Identification Warning Emergence

Requirements Rescue Recovery

Relocation Evacuation

101
PARTICIPANTS -- EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING WORKSHOP

Edwina Juillet (Chairperson) Waynesboro Community Hospital

501 Oak Avenue

Waynesboro, VA 22980

3an Bishop Regional Health Planning Council

8 Park Place Newark, N3 07102

Dr. John L. Bryan

Professor and Chairman

Fire Protection Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

Helaine Elderkin

Special Assistant to the Director PA & E

Federal Emergency Management Agency

1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20472

Loren Fields Chief, Planning Division California Office of Emergency Services Post Office Box 9577 Sacramento, CA 95823

Sidney Israel Chief, Fire and Safety Staff Office of Construction Veterans Administration Washington, DC 20420

Richard Dotson

Staff Assistant, Public Safety

National League of Cities 1620 Eye Street, N.E., - 2nd Fl. Washington, DC 20006 James Surratt Office of Emergency Services

310 Turner Road

Richmond, VA 23225

Robert Rosenberry

Director of Emergency Planning Staff Veterans Administration

810 Vermont Avenue., N.W.

Washington, DC 20420 David Thompson

504 Coordinator

Office of Equal Opportunity Maryland State Department of Education

Post Office Box 8717 Baltimore-Washington International Airport Baltimore, MD 21240

William N. Whitehead

Regional Coordinator, Region 2 Office of Emergency and Energy Service 612-C West Rio Rd.

Charlottesville, VA 22901 John Hanson Human Resources

Disaster Preparedness Project National Governors Association

Hall of the States 444 N. Capitol Street Washington, DC 20001 Peggy Smith

Federal Emergency Management Agency

1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Eunice Fiorito Advocacy Office

Rehabilitation Services Administration

U.S. Department of HEW

330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20036

Bernard M. Levin Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 20234

Earle W. Kennett Programs Director AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Sharon Machida

Research Assistant AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

102
WORKSHOP 3: BUILDING DESIGN

Recorded by Gretchen G. Bank AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

The Building Design Workshop was the third

in a series of six such workshops convened by the AIA Research Corporation, the Task Force on

Life Safety and the Handicapped, and the National Bureau of Standards. These workshops

have been funded by the U.S. Fire Administration

for the purpose of developing position papers which will serve as the basis for a November 1979 Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped. By the culmination of the project, which is a unique attempt to collect information on the

national level, 150 individuals will have been

involved, including representatives from the Federal Emergency Management Administration,

the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, The American Institute of Architects, and the National Bureau of Standards. This particular workshop took place on 10 September 1979; participants are listed on page 5 of this report. The stated objective of the meeting, which was chaired by Richard Klinker (General Services

Administration), was to identify problem areas in building design with regard to fire safety for handicapped individuals. It would be safe to say

that participants in the workshop found certain

difficulties with this, largely due to the broadness of the topic area, the complexity of the

issues involved, and the shortness of the time

allotted for the meeting. However, after much

discussion and argument, some of these problem

areas were identified, and the role of building designers in solving the problems was discussed. A general statement of the philosophy or basic assumptions of the meeting was provided

by Dr. Anne Phillips, one of the participants, and

is as follows: The basic concepts needed in building design for the safety of the handi- capped are much the same as those for

protection of the ablebodied. Limiting

the size of the fire and controlling the spread of fire gases so that most of the building is tenable will save lives

in both groups. If design for fire safety for the handicapped is to be

rational it should be carried out in total design concepts. The designer must plan for (1) management of the

fire; (2) horizontal movement of the

building occupants to safety areas (which is more rapid and less likely to result in accidents than vertical movement); (3) evacuation of the occupants; or a combination of these. Within the existing catalogue of devices and equipment are many of the means of accomplishing these objectives. Defending in place would

obviously be optimal. To consider the handicapped en masse

is an exercise in futility. The needs of the wheelchair patient are different from those of the deaf, the blind, the aged, the infant, the restrained, and

the inebriated. Even the term

"handicapped" presents difficulties since many of the so-called "handicapped" consider themselves

only "physically inconvenienced". Absence of data on fire injury in the handicapped population adds to the complexity of the problem, although common sense tells us that fire safety

for the handicapped has shortcomings and technological advances should be developed for their assistance. The problems considered by this panel were those of people having difficulty 103
in perceiving a fire threat or in responding to such a threat. We

addressed ourselves mainly to those who

are blind, deaf, or in wheelchairs, but who are able to enter and leave a

building independently. Moreover, we

identified areas needing attention

rather than reaching definitive

solutions. During the initial stages of the meeting, a

fair amount of time was spent in discussion of the term "handicapped", as Dr. Phillips has mentioned above. One participant definitely preferred the term "physically inconvenienced"

to "handicapped", while two other participants each had their own methods of classification of disabled individuals. The first method broke handicapped persons into the following groups: those who have difficulty perceiving the threat; those who are incapable of analyzing the meaning of the threat; and those who have

difficulty reacting to the threat, once its meaning is understood. The other method broke

people down in a similar fashion, with more

emphasis on egress from the building. This method is as follows: the buildings themselves;

all users of the building who should know what to do in case of emergency; those who will not know

what to do, and who will need to be cared for; and those who physically cannot help themselves

out of the building. The essence of the conversation was that classification was another complex issue, and that building solutions could

easily be bogged down in unclear definition of projected building users. One of the basic problems for designers is that there is a tendency to put all handicapped

persons together as a single consideration in programming the building. This often results in stereotyping handicapped individuals as a single model person, usually represented by a figure in a wheelchair. For the designer, the primary

consideration is the relationship of the handi- capped person to the environment, both physical and social, in which he/she will have to exist. For the most part, the aspect of building design which was most emphasized in the meeting was that of egress for those who are handicapped. The handicapped today often have

only one means of egress, although two are regarded as essential for people with optimum

mobility. A conflict becomes evident here, between issues of ingress and egress: after all this struggle to make buildings more accessible

to those with physical disabilities, what about making these same buildings easy to evacuate? The problem obviously should not be dropped as a

callous, "Well, they got in, so they must be able

to get out." At this juncture in the meeting, the

issue of personal risk was raised, as it was in

almost every other workshop in this series. The

point was made that handicapped individuals live at higher risk customarily; shouldn't they simply have to accept this, whether with regard to buildings or not? Why should buildings be

designed for the handicapped so that "normal"

people must operate at the same level of precaution? The group continued on to discuss social

responsibility; is it a social need that everyone

receives equal protection under the law? that everyone be told how to cope with an emergency

situation that could potentially affect them?

The general feeling was that there was a social responsibility for this kind of protection, largely based on the fact that the American evaluation

of risk has changed drastically in this century, and that it is much less acceptable for people to

die as a result of building dangers or disasters. Problem areas which were identified at the meeting can be loosely classified according to the following headings: notification, protection

in place or horizontal removal/movement, and

total evacuation. These problem areas are, for the most part, useoriented and may vary according to building type.

1. Notification Currently, designers face the problem that they are provided with information on handicapped persons in terms of physical and

mental disabilities, whereas they need this infor- mation in terms of primary human response

capabilities (sensing, understanding, and responding to the threat). There is a particular need

for information on the individual's ability to move horizontally or vertically within the

building, the space that is required for such movement, the strength that is required for movement and handling doors, latches, etc.

1. There exists a need to identify those individuals who, in emergency situations, would need

special notification and some type

of assistance. The accomplishment

of this task would also require the

identification of those individuals who would be capable of assisting the handicapped, and the type of assistance which would be required, should such a situation arise. This would be necessary for all building types, especially in transient situations, such as hotels/motels; however, these precautions should also be taken in such building types as

offices, multi-family or highrise

residential buildings, and other

facilities which encourage use by
the handicapped.

2. There exists a need for a higher

level of information transfer, in order to give the handicapped the necessary information about the

building, the threat to the building,

etc., which will assist them in making decisions. Certain types of handicaps/disabilities hinder an in- dividual's ability to perceive and

evaluate a fire threat, due either to sensory or mental disabilities, or

to a lack of information about the

building they are occupying.

3. There is a need to investigate innovative alarm systems which

would have the capabilities of notifying the deaf or hearing-impaired, or the blind, of a fire emergency.

Current fire alarm systems fall short of meeting the needs of the handicapped who have less time to search for and reach areas of safety than do the able-bodied.

Signals are not differentiated, and

fail to instruct the handicapped as

to the action to be taken. A person

with limited vision, unless given adequate instructions, may move

toward the fire instead of away

from it. Even able-bodied people may have difficulty hearing alarm

bells which sound in corridors, and,

for those who are sleeping soundly

or hard of hearing, the alarm system may be totally inadequate. The possibility should be investi- gated as to whether motel/hotel occupants could be alerted through

their room telephones or television

sets. Another approach may be to have rooms with special devices

(installed or portable) for alerting the deaf.

2. Protection in Place/Horizontal Movement

Essentially, the protect-in-place concept,

while sounding difficult, is a common one in American building design, and is inherent in many of our current building codes for certain

building types. Older apartment buildings generally had thinner walls between units, and

suffered from the potential transfer of fire from

unit to unit. The tradition of compartmentation,

in which each apartment is a defense against every other apartment, probably had its origin in the New York City Tenement Act of 1910, and

has been an eminently successful method of

designing buildings since then. In other communities where there has been a conscious

effort to develop compartmentation techniques,

the failure to provide substantial doors and door

closers or other compensating features (such as corridor sprinklers) has resulted in problems of

fire spread from one apartment to the next, causing injuries to both people and property in adjoining units. Problem areas under this category are as follows:

^. There is a need to convey the designer's concept for the building by means of the building's management scheme, and

assure that it finds its way into the hands of the handicapped individual who

needs this type of information in case

of emergency. Some handicapped persons need special instructions on how to use the building during an emergency; these instructions must be tuned to the specific design and

construction of the building and the ways in which it will operate under fire conditions. It is up to the building management to make sure that any handicapped persons in the building receive this information in a manner

which is useful to them.

5. There exists a need to identify the two

categories of people who need to be protected in place in case of an emergency. These classifications break down into two groups: those who need a place of refuge within the building envelope,

those who require extended-time

evacuation.

3. Evacuation

It is axiomatic that the best place to be

during a fire is not in it. If it happens, however,

that an individual is caught in a fire, then the

logical thing to do is to get out of it. The

problem is that this may not in fact be true, that the very act of leaving a building may take

a person from a relatively safe area closer or right into the area of greatest risk. Therefore, it must be recognized that some of the safety precautions which are urged upon people are anti-intuitive, and instructions are necessary. This may be a

particular problem for a disabled person, if his/her handicap makes traveling the exit route

difficult or extraordinarily slow, or if his/her sensory or cognitive capabilities prevent him/her

105
from recognizing the threat.

6. There exists a need to relate the

building design to the actual needs

of the handicapped persons who

will be using the building, and not

to presume that they will always be on their own, nor to assume that they will always receive every bit of assistance that they need.

7. There exists a need to develop

effective exit lights in stairwells. A strobe light in the stairwell has been shown to accelerate evacuation by lending a sense of urgency, and also to provide (if there are windows) a guide for the fire de- partment in locating the fire. In addition, a sound source located near the exit would aid the blind and those blinded by smoke.

Also, for both those with reduced

mobility and the able-bodied, there

is a need for dual exit lights, one

set being installed where it can be

seen over the heads of others, and

a second set near the floor, which

can be seen when there is thick smoke obscuring the upper set. Once the discussion shifted to the question

of optimal building solutions, several points were made which are crucial to the results of the meeting, and in a larger sense, to the whole topic

of design for the handicapped.

• The most desirable solutions are those which leave the greatest number of options open for as long as possible. This refers to questions which were

raised about the fact that two means of egress are required for the able-bodied,

yet usually there is only one for handi- capped individuals. • Building solutions cannot depend solely on the education of the individuals who

will be involved in the building. The

solutions must be readily comprehensible to anyone without special

training; it is unrealistic to expect that people will be adequately trained in how

a particular building works. • Circumstances must be identified in which the responses of the handicapped

are as possible, and just as effective, as those of the able-bodied. Recommendations for work on potential

building solutions were developed in order of the

highest priority, and are presented here.

1. Highest priority must go to work on

that part of the design which is the

least known. From the group's

discussion, it appeared that the

issue least understood was that of the limitations of handicapped indi- viduals in relation to the building's design features (ex. —internal methods of communication, signals, transportation within the building, and operation mechanisms).

2. For fire-safe design, it is not

possible to derive all of the

solutions from existing technological information about equip- ment, devices, and capabilities. A

significant portion must be derived from the careful examination of incidents and human reactions to those incidents, whether successful

or unsuccessful. Unfortunately,

there is currently little data on the

behavior, number of injuries, etc., of handicapped individuals in fires.

3. The third priority is the necessity

of providing technical design infor- mation on equipment and devices in terms of values which can be measured with regard to the

abilities or inabilities of handi- capped persons. This is most important for those with sensory

handicaps. Currently, it seems

that most experts are promoting

single-dimensional solutions, and

asking designers to convert to those solutions. Ideally, it is necessary to develop a wide range

of effective solutions or approaches (quantitative in nature)

to allow for variations and

alternatives in a design for the handicapped. The general sense of the committee was

that basic information on fire protection design and the elements involved in meeting the basic objectives of preventing ignition, fire management, and protecting individuals exposed to the

fire exist and are in usable form. Obviously,

better design and research can improve knowledge in this area. What is very much missing from the state-of-the-art is basic knowledge on

the capabilities and susceptibilities of the handi- capped individual. The ultimate goal is to broaden designers' understanding of user needs for buildings. Specifically, there is a need to train and inform

106
lesigners on the handicapped and their needs in Duiidings; designers must understand that the handicapped, whiie needing design attention, are just one of the many types of people who

use buildings. Ideally, design for the handi- capped should simply be better design for everyone, a total design which is a meshing of the needs of the handicapped with all other needs and the building program in order to come

up with a design which satisfies, both

functionally and aesthetically.

107
PARTICIPANTS - BUILDING DESIGN WORKSHOP

Richard Klinker (Chairman)

Engineering Applications Branch

Accident and Fire Prevention-PBA/GSA

General Services Administration

19th and F Streets, N.W.

Washington, DC 20405

Dr. 3ohn L. Bryan

Professor and Chairman of Fire Protection Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 207^*2

3. Armand Burgun, AIA

Rogers, Burgun, Shahine, and Deschler, Architects

521 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017 David Hamm.erman

Fire Protection Engineer

Office of the State Fire Marshal 3950 Chaffey Road

Randallstown, MD 21133 Tom Goonan

Accident and Fire Protection Division General Services Administration

18th and F Streets, N.W.

Washington, DC 20^^05 3ohn Klote

Building 22^^, Room A36 3 National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 2023^^ Robert Lynch, AIA

^^40 Pleasant Street Maiden, MA 02148 Harold Nelson

Building 224, Room A363

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 20234 Anne Phillips, M.D.

60 State Street

Suite 2780

Boston, MA 02109 Rexford Wilson

Firepro, Inc. Post Office Box 145 Wellesley Hills, MA 02181

Earle W. Kennett Programs Director AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Gretchen G. Bank

Project Manager AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

108
WORKSHOP ^: EDUCATION

Reported by Sharon L. Machida AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

1. Introduction The Education Workshop was the fourth in a

series of six Workshops on Life Safety and the Handicapped convened by the AIA Research

Corporation, the Task Force on Life Safety and

the Handicapped, and the National Bureau of Standards. These workshops were sponsored by

the U.S. Fire Administration and constitute a preliminary stage in the development of a comprehensive policy to ensure the life safety,

particularly the fire safety, of handicapped

individuals. At the present there is very little material

available on the subject of fire safety for the handicapped and, nationwide, programs for educating both the handicapped and the able-bodied

in the special problems of fire safety for the handicapped are few and far between. In recent

efforts to find programs and educational

materials that address fire safety and the handi- capped, the U.S. Fire Administration's Office of Planning and Education identified the following: Special programs developed by municipal

fire departments:

• Mount Prospect (Illinois) Fire Department

fire safety education program for the hearing-impaired in high schools; • Chicago (Illinois) Fire Department's Fire Education Bureau's work within its Neigh- borhood Awareness Program;

• Las Vegas (Nevada) Fire Department, Fire Education Bureau's work with the hearing- impaired, including a pantomime play, "What To Do In Case Of A Silent Fire"

(the Fire Education Bureau has a brochure which includes a section on "Services to the Handicapped");

• Montclair (California) Fire Department's

Residential Fire Safety Program for handicapped, disabled, and elderly homeowners.

Educational materials:

• Three programs have translated fire safety educational materials for able- bodied individuals into Braille for use by

the visually-impaired; • "Wheeling to Fire Safety: Fire Emergency

Procedures for Paralyzed and Other Handicapped People," a brochure produced

by the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans

Association;

• "Fire Safety for You: A Guide for Handicapped People," released by the National Fire Protection Association. The workshop participants were invited for

their experience in teaching the handicapped, or

their involvement in special fire service programs

such as those mentioned above. The workshop

participants are listed on the last page. The general question before the workshop

participants was: What are the current fire education needs of handicapped people? There was general agreement at the outset of the meeting that not only are there very few

materials available for educating people in fire safety and the handicapped, but also there is little awareness of the very real problems faced by handicapped individuals in emergencies. Due to time constraints, discussion at the workshop centered around fire safety in the home rather than

in other occupancy types. The six specific questions addressed by the participants were:

1. In what ways would the content

109
of fire safety materials for the handicapped differ from the content developed for non-handi- capped individuals? Can

material developed for the non- handicapped simply be adapted

for the handicapped?

2. How is fire safety education for the handicapped to be conveyed? What form (film, record, bro- chure) do the materials take?

3. To whom should fire safety education for the handicapped be conveyed? Handicapped adults? Primarily handicapped children? How? Through special community meetings? Classes at school? Fire Department de- monstrations?

14-. What organizations, agencies or persons would support the devel- opment and dissemination of fire safety education materials for the handicapped? Who could provide technical assistance? What organizations could provide funding? How could the material be distributed to the user?

5. What fire safety issues need to be identified for the handicapped

out side of the home?

6. Who needs to be knowledgeable

about fire safety for the handi- capped other than the handi- capped?

2. Content The same kinds of precaution and safety measures that are stressed in fire safety education for the general population also apply

to the handicapped. However, it is much more

crucial for the handicapped to follow general fire safety rules since they are less able to escape

threatening situations than the non-handicapped.

Thus, more than content, the differences lie in the degree of emphasis given to various key elements of fire safety. For example, it is extremely important that handicapped indivi- duals register with their local fire departments. Two other elements that would be most stressed

in education for the handicapped are practice

(of self-defense strategies, escape, etc.) and maintenance (of viable escape plans for different types of emergency situations, appropriate alarm

systems, etc.).

In terms of specific fire safety messages,

there are some differences in content depending if the messages are directed to able-bodied or handicapped persons. Fire safety messages for the general population consist of two kinds: 1) What you (the potential victim of a fire) can do to prepare for a fire situation (e.g., escape planning, notifying fire department, installing smoke detectors); 2) What to do in terms of preventing

potential fires (e.g., identifying home hazards, improving personal safety habits). The following charts ~ Figure 1.: What You Can Do; and Figure

2.: Prevention ~ present the workshop partici- pants' recommendations for a potential brochure

of fire safety messages for the handicapped (as well as the able-bodied, who will also be involved

in prevention and action processes that include

participation by handicapped individuals). The entries on the charts are extensions of good fire safety practice or give special emphasis

to some element of standard fire safety. In both

charts, specific safety messages are referenced to types of handicap, which were limited to movement, hearing and visual handicaps. Specific content and trade-offs related to other handicaps and multiple handicaps were not addressed in this workshop due to time limitations.

3. Teaching Methodology How is fire safety education for the handi- capped to be conveyed? What form do the materials take? There was a general unstated consensus to concentrate on teaching children ~ handicapped and non-handicapped - fire safety education for the handicapped. The workshop participants felt that education in fire safety for the handicapped

could be a vehicle for simultaneously teaching the non-handicapped the necessity of following good

fire safety practice. Although it was noted that we must not ignore the institutionalized population ~ those in nursing homes, special schools,

etc. ~ the participants did not address teaching methodologies specifically keyed to institutional

settings.The vast majority of handicapped children are in public school; it is estimated that only 10 percent of the handicapped are institutionalized.

In general, there is a need to integrate the teaching of fire safety for the handicapped with

general fire safety education. A handicapped

child could be used in fire demonstrations. For example, by having a blind student participate in a demonstration of putting out a fire in a trash can, two things are accomplished: 1) the blind student

has gained valuable practice in putting out a fire;

2) the non-handicapped students have gained a

visual lesson, which for them is just as valuable as the blind student's tactile experience. 110
There is a need to train fire service person-

|nel in fire safety for the handicapped. This is (especially crucial in communicating with the hearing-impaired. Children identify with fire fighters; fire service personnel who give demonstrations in schools should integrate special messages for the handicapped children into those demonstrations. Parents can be reached through education of

their children in public and specialized schools. Efforts at giving the problem wide coverage

through TV public service announcements could

also be made. A symbol on the order of "Smokey

the Bear" could bie developed to publicize life safety and the handicapped. A summary of considerations in teaching methodology related to specific handicaps is given

below. Movement-impaired:

People restricted to wheelchairs need to be aware of and practice the different escape and

fire safety strategies they will need in the event

of fire. When teaching children in a school

setting, educators may want to isolate this group

for specialized instruction which would differ from that for the visually-impaired, hearingimpaired, and the non-handicapped. All groups

should be aware of the basic fire safety strategies

for those restricted to wheelchairs. Hearing-impaired: Communication skills are the most imporant

factor with this type of handicap. Two issues of importance are: • Training of communicators (fire personI nel, teachers, etc.) in fire safety for the handicapped;

• Vulnerability of the hearing-impaired. Fear arousal may be greater because when alarms go off, or strobe lights, or

visual clarity is obscured by smoke and

confusion, a non-hearing person is more

vulnerable than a hearing person.

Specific points related to teaching methodology

and teaching materials: • The best vehicle for teaching fire safety

is live demonstration, preferably by two

people — a fire fighter (who uses vivid pantomime and other means to convey

the fire messages) and an interpreter. Since any group of hearing-impaired indi- viduals will have individuals with widely

varying levels of auditory perception, pantomime, speaking, and translating

will result in a valuable learning experi- ence for every individual in the audience.

• Demonstrations could be reinforced with captioned TV programs and films. Films and TV programs developed for an

audience that would include hearing- impaired individuals should have a lot of action, be physically descriptive, colorful and have some humor. Characters

in such a program should have readable

lips: of two films currently used in fire safety education ~ "Learn Not to Burn"

with Dick Van Dyke and "The Donald Duck Survival Plan" ~ the Dick Van Dyke film is more understandable to hearing-impaired lip readers, even

though the physical action in the Donald Duck film is more descriptive. • In demonstrations, plays, and in class, use pantomime as a teaching tool. Concepts like stop/drop/roll and the use

of fire extinguishers are effectively conveyed to hearing-impaired children and adults through pantomime. But an

inherent danger is that educators cannot afford to make any errors that may

become fixed in the minds of the

learners. • In all demonstrations, films, and litera- ture emphasize positively reinforced messages. For example, if the message

is "don't play with matches in the

closet, " do not show children playing with matches in the closet with only the audio or written portion giving the negative message.

• Be sure that the hearing-impaired

student understands. This is assured through creative repetition ~ repeating

the lesson in different ways.

Often, a hearing-impaired student will nod understanding when he/she doesn't understand, in order not to incon- venience the teacher, who will have to repeat the information.

Visually-impaired:

In teaching materials geared to the

visually-impaired, make use of all the media

available. Even though it is estimated that only 10 percent of the blind can read Braille, it is still worthwhile to make Braille materials available, as

well as audio cassette tapes and large print. As

mentioned above, hands-on demonstrations using visually-impaired participants also give non-handi- capped participants visual education. Educators

should try to emphasize the tactile in teaching

111
fire safety.

^. Whom? How?

To whom should fire safety education for the handicapped be conveyed? At this point in the workshop the answer was relatively obvious:

as many people as possible should know about

fire safety for the handicapped, through as many

means as possible. Some of the means of educating people about fire safety for the handi- capped have been discussed in previous sections. Other methods are: • National organizations for different groups of handicapped individuals Fire safety messages could be conveyed

through annual meetings, newsletters, seminars and other means open to these

organizations. Such organizations in- clude: National Federation for the

Blind National Association of the Deaf

Council of Organizations

Serving the Deaf

Eastern Paralyzed Veterans

Association National Paraplegic Foundation

• Distribution of all materials de- veloped for use in the waiting rooms of doctor's offices, hospitals, and other types of institutions. • Social clubs (informal groups of handicapped individuals or sports groups like the American Athletic Association of the Deaf.

• Community meetings and churches

(there are special churches for people with different handicaps).

• Teacher organizations like the Association for the Education of the Visually-Handicapped and

special education organizations.

• A clearinghouse system which

could be estabished at libraries servicing handicapped individuals. • Programs on fire safety for the deaf with visuals and signing such

as those which the Osmond Brothers will start in January 1980. Other national education efforts may also be in preparation.

5. Organizations and Agencies What organizations, agencies or persons could

assist in development, funding and dissemi- nation? Beyond those groups already mentioned

above, the fire service organizations are

defnitely to be considered in all these efforts. In fact, it has often been the fire service that has prompted action on behalf of the handicapped.

Also lists of organizations and agencies are disseminated by the national foundations for specific handicaps. There are national, state,

local, and school groups for the visually-impaired, hearing-impaired, and orthopedically-impaired. Some organizations not previously mentioned include: Federal government agencies: -Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (USOE)

-Office for the Handicapped (HEW)

-Veterans Administration -Maternal and Child Health Service (HEW)

Other organizations: -Alexander Graham Bell Association -American Coalition of Citizens with Disabilities -Association for Citizens with Retarded Human Development

-Epilepsy Foundation -Center for Independent Living -American Foundation for the Blind

All the organizations mentioned so far could be of help in developing materials and disseminating them. There are also consumer groups and

medical research organizations.

In terms of funding, the following options were

brought out during the workshop:

• Insurance companies

• Local civic groups (e.g.. Lions Club, Kiwanis Club)

• Department of Housing and Urban

Development, Community Development

112
Block Grant Program. In Montclair,

California, the Community Development

Block Grant allocation under the Montclair Rehabilitation Loan and Senior Repair Programs enables fire department

personnel to assist in the installation of smoke detectors and fire alarms, wheelchair ramps, fire escape hatches and

other types of devices necessary in the homes of disabled and handicapped indi- viduals with low incomes.

• Other avenues within the federal, state, municipal governments.

• Municipal bonds. The State of California has a Redevelopment Plan which allo- cates 20 percent of the revenue of the

sale of municipal bonds to a program

similar to the Community Development

Block Grant Program.

• Title 5, Older Americans Act (Depart- ment of Labor). Supports such programs

as fire inspections conducted by senior

citizens in the homes of elderly and the handicapped.

6. Outside the Home

What issues need to be identified related to

fire safety for the handicapped outside the home?

1. All educational messages must be

basic and simple. For example,

"keep alert, look around."

2. Individuals must be aware of escape

planning when in different types of

buildings, and familiar with exits.

3. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which is concerned with prob- lems of access, states that there must be "reasonable accommodation" in theatres, stadiums, and

other types of public assembly buildings. Handicapped people should be aware of the egress problems they

will have in those types of environ- ments. Seating should be based on informed choice, not segregation.

4. Individuals must be able to find exits and refuge areas. Although a few

buildings have good warning systems

for individuals with movement,

hearing, and visual impairments, most buildings will only have an

audible system. Work needs to be done on exit identification and es- cape procedures in offices and public buildings. This area is largely a matter of education, product development, consumer interests, and

codes.

5. Building managers must be responsible

for the maintenance of all alarm sys- tems. Even though products may be

available, codes in place, a sturdy educational system in operation, it is still the ultimate responsibility of the

building manager of a public building

to maintain all the alarm and escape

systems.

7. Who Else Needs to be Knowledgeable? Who is responsible for fire safety for the handicapped? The consensus of the workshop

participants was that everyone has a moral and

social responsibility to be at least aware of the

issue of fire safety and the handicapped. In terms of legal responsibility, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act only covers access, not

egress, in emergencies. The burden of responsibility lies with the handicapped individual. Handicapped people must take it upon themselves to be aware of their escape options in every building they enter. Other related issues are the handicapped individual's right to risk and

the potential for panic that can occur in a real emergency.

Public officials should be knowledgeable about

the problems involved in ensuring fire safety for the handicapped. One avenue for raising the

level of awareness among public officials is to give "handicap days" a new twist ~ by calling a

fire drill while a city council member is confined

to a wheelchair for a day. Through all means possible, awareness of the problems and knowledge of posssible solutions and educational methods for implementing these

solutions must be fostered. Special target groups

are the fire services, handicapped groups, educators, and youth.

8. Conclusions The participants unanimously voiced the conviction that educators in fire safety are

responsible for: 1) educating themselves in the

special needs of the handicapped; and 2) teaching

the handicapped and the able-bodied effective

strategies for fire safety that would result in greater fire safety for all. The handicapped must educate themselves and be aware that they

are ultimately responsible for knowing their options in any environment in the event of a fire or other emergency. The able-bodied must be aware of ways to assist in the safe evacuation of handicapped individuals in their families, workplaces, and in other social environments. At the close of the workshop, individual
participants voiced concerns they felt to be of the

greatest importance in the area of education in fire safety and the handicapped.

1. In order to make the greatest impact on how people react to fire situations when handicapped people

are involved, training programs

should focus on youth from as early on as possible. Educational

materials for children should emphasize that there are certain things that handicapped persons, regardless

of the specific disability, can control while not misleading them about

the things they cannot control.

2. Life safety for the handicapped is analogous to the civil rights movement, another case of "it should have been done ages ago, but it wasn't." The handicapped have been

discriminated against in terms of safe egress from buildings in emergencies for years; the handicapped

population has the same rights as does the general population; and the

right to safety must not mean denial

of access. In terms of education, there needs to be a movement to- ward total behavioral modification

as regards the total population's perception of its handicapped members.

although there must be efforts to raise the awareness of the general public.

6. Resource materials need to be devel- oped. For example, case studies for different cities could be written and a prototype program for different cities could be developed. Much needs to be done in producing supporting materials

to such a model program.

3. Some thought must be given to

priorities. Is it more important to focus our efforts on egress from

highrise office buildings or on egress from homes for the elderly? Many

areas need to be addressed but we

are not yet clear on a research, development and information dis- semination agenda.

^. Resources need to be pooled. This may largely be solved by projects

like the Workshops and the November Symposium. In most

cases, programs and product devel- opment are so new that people are

not aware of others working in the same area.

5. Due to an accident suffered by a workshop participant, a primary

group of handicapped people not represented at the meeting were

those with mental disabilities. All groups of individuals must realize that they are ultimately responsible

for themselves, including the educable mentally handicapped.

11*
FIGURE 1. WHAT YOU CAN DO -— Preparation for and in a Fire Emergency
FIGURE 1. WHAT YOU CAN DO (cont'd)
FIGURE 2. PREVENTION

117
PARTICIPANTS - EDUCATION WORKSHOP

Phineas Anderson (Chairman)

Director

Fire Policy, Research and Development

Office of Planning and Education

U.S. Fire Administration

Federal Emergency Management Agency 2W0 M Street, N.W., - Room 60^^ Washington, DC 20^72

Richard Champion

U.S. Office of Education Bureau of Education for the Handicapped (USOE/BEH)

^00 Maryland Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20202 Robert Dantona USOE/BEH

Donahoe Building Wi^6

t^OO 6th Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20202 Jim Brown

Fire Inspector Montclair Fire Department

8901 Monte Vista Avenue

Montclair, CA 91763 Norman Groner

Research Psychologist Center for Fire Research Rm. A-363, Bldg. 22^

National Bureau of Standards Washington, D.C. 20234

Fred Jameson

Fire Education Officer Las Vegas Fire Department

'too East Stewart Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101 Janiece Peterson

Special Education Teacher

John Tyler Elementary School

10th & G Streets, S.E. Washington, DC 20003 Debbe Hagner

Student, National Technical Institute for the Deaf

Rochester Institute of Technology

30 Lowenthal Road

Box 2342

Rochester, NY 14623

Jim Gibson Program Coordiantor

Fire Awareness for the Handicapped

Chicago Fire Department

City Hall

121 LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 Margaret Smith

Consultant, Emergency Preparedness

Planning for the Disabled Community

Federal Emergency Management Agency

1725 "Eye" Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20472

Earle W. Kennett Programs Director AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Nancy Stone

U.S. Fire Administration Federal Emergency Management Agency

Washington, DC 20472

Sharon L. Machida

Research Assistant AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

118
WORKSHOP 5: CONSUMER INTERESTS

Reported by Gretchen Bank AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

1. Introduction The Consunner Interests Workshop was the

fifth in a series of six such workshops convened

by the AIA Research Corporation, the Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped, and

the National Bureau of Standards. The workshops have been funded by the U.S. Fire Administrators for the purpose of developing

position papers which will serve as the basis for a November 1979 Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped. By the culmination of the

project, a unique attempt to collect information

at the national level, 150 individuals will have

been involved, including representatives from

the Federal Emergency Management Administration, the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, The American Institute of Architects, and the National Bureau of Standards. This

particular workshop took place on September 17, 1979; participants are listed on the last page of

this report. The workshop, chaired by Ronald Mace,

AIA, opened with the statement that consumer

interests cut across the topic areas of other workshops, and that the day's discussion could be categorized according to those topics. These

topics are Codes and Standards, Emergency

Preparedness Planning, Building Design, Education, and Products. One of the basic assumptions of the workshop was the fact that handi- capped persons have, of late, become more and more "mainstreamed" into "normal" life. Therefore, they are placed in a much greater range of situations, both emergency and non- emergency. At this workshop, participants concentrated on the questions of consumer interests with regard to education and training, both

their own and that of the personnel who deal

with disabled persons; building solutions and products; and codes and standards. This report will present salient points of the discussion which were

distilled from notes and tapes of the meeting. These are not definitive answers; rather, the group focused on raising questions.

In the early stages of the meeting, the group

recorded a number of "philosophies," or ideas, which seemed to be undercurrents in much of the work currently being undertaken in the field. These are listed here; several of them are

paradoxical, but this is indicative of the problems which are faced in the field.

1. Non-accessibility of buildings to those who are disabled because of

fire hazards is absolutely unacceptable.

2. Those persons who are handicapped or disabled have a right to risk as do

able-bodied persons; conversely, they have as much right to safety precautions.

3. An increase in fire safety for the handicapped would necessarily in- crease fire safety for the ablebodied.

i^. Some balance between safety/risk and building costs must be reached. What is required is an objective

analysis of marginal costs for provi- ding safety features for the handi- capped, so that building costs would

not be "loaded". This balance is reached somewhat in design for the

able-bodied.

5. An awareness of potential emergency

119
situations needs to be developed

annong disabled persons.

6. There is a need to train emergency

personnel to assist handicapped

persons in case of emergency.

7. Emergency procedures may need to be developed for the handicapped;

the knowledge base needs to be broadened through literature searches, research, and the employment of experts in related

fields.

8. There is a need to identify what

handicapped persons need to know

in terms of risks, protection, and

fire safety.

9. Coordination and understanding of

fire safety procedures and plans of action for handicapped persons need to be developed, with the cooperation and contributions of people who are disabled.

10. Fire drills and practices should always include those handicapped

persons who are present, in order

to better identify problems which

could arise in a real emergency

situation. Perhaps the single strongest feeling to emerge

from the meeting was that handicapped people are

not interested in being treated as separate, and

different, segments of the population, and that design for the handicapped should be integrated with overall building design from the beginning of the design process.

2. Education and Training

This segment of the day's discussion was

focused on two areas: the education and awareness of the handicapped individuals themselves, and the training of personnel who deal with the handicapped under ordinary circumstances (assis- tance-oriented professions). The most significant problem plaguing the preparation of the handicapped for emergency

situations is a general lack of awareness; the handicapped need to be cognizant of the fact that they can be and are placed in situations which are

potential emergency situations. It is crucial that

they, along with the able-bodied, be aware of this, so that they will be better able to prepare for and

deal with emergencies, specifically fire emergencies. The question at hand, therefore, is what do

the handicapped actually need as part of their own

training to cope with emergencies, once they are aware of their own risks? These are gaps which

need to be identified in future work. The issues raised so far have been, for the most part, abstract in nature. There was some

discussion revolving around practical applications

of these ideas. Once those people with any

disabilities have been notified of the emergency,

there exist, or should exist, certain procedures to be followed under those circumstances. One of the workshop participants made the point that handicapped individuals should always take part

in any drills which are held in buildings of any

sort as part of their training, in order to identify problem areas in the developed procedures, since many buildings' fire safety features are based on

the assumption that handicapped people will not have to travel great distances.

In the area of education and training for personnel who work with the handicapped, the focus is more on communication skills than on

notification procedures. At the beginning of the

discussion, the participants spoke in general terms about the need for a greater awareness

and sensitivity among personnel who deal with handicapped individuals, which could perhaps be developed through existing training programs. As the workshop continued, a specific set of needs was developed. Educational Programs to Include Emergency

Training These programs should be provided through:

1. Rehabilitation training systems (in these systems, the training often

begins in schools);

2. Training for the general public;

3. Disability service providers; Associations connected with this type

of activity, such as the Easter Seals organization. Major points which need to be emphasized in these types of programs are:

1. That handicapped individuals are, in fact, more vulnerable than the able- bodied in emergency situations;

2. That they must be taught how to handle themselves in emergency

situations; different modes of behavior need to be identified for use

in these situations;

3. That they must be able to work with

others and help others to help them;

this requires the development of

specific communication techniques.

120
A major problem is one of security. When

local fire departments have lists of disabled persons within their areas of responsibility, in order to more easily locate those who need

assistance, there may be a higher incidence of burglary in homes of the handicapped. By the same token, any obvious decal or symbol

denoting the residence of a disabled person is also a signal to any burglar. It was decided at the meeting that emergency services need these

kinds of identification for the handicapped, but the problem is how to let them know without

letting undesirables know as well. Different groups who are involved with

buildings should be trained and educated about how to assist disabled persons in emergency

situations. These groups include

building operators, landlords, and emergency

personnel. These occupational groupings are not meant to focus only on residential buildings; they

include night clubs, offices, and any other large, publicly-used building as well. Two methods of affecting building managers and landlords are through the Building Operators and Managers

Association (BOM A), and insurance companies

which provide coverage for the buildings in question. Training programs could also be set up through these organizations. As far as the training of design professionals is concerned, there is very little attention

paid to the issues surrounding design for the handicapped in existing architecture curricula.

It was suggested that codes and standards would

be useful in helping to make designers and design students more aware of these problems, once some of the suggested features related to safe egress by handicapped individuals are incor- porated into the code instruments. Another issue which was raised was that

of the standardization of training programs;

participants were referred to the U.S. Fire Administration, which has made some attempt

at packaging some programs in this area.

3. Building Solutions and Products

For the most part, the discussion in this area focused on problems of products dealing with fire safety, rather than actual building

solutions or designs. The statement was made

that there is almost nothing in current architectural training practices which touches on the

design of products for fire prevention. Currently, there is some work being undertaken

in accessibility retrofit, but examples of this work need to be assembled and distributed to a wide audience before they can be of use to the

designer.The participants discussed building

compartmentation: how it is successful for the most part, how techniques of compartmentation

have improved steadily during the course of the twentieth century, how it is possible to refer to areas of safety or refuge in a building when

talking about methods of "managing a fire" and

the occupants of the building in question. One of the problems discussed in conjunction with this idea was that of convincing those people who are

not on endangered floors of the building to allow

those who are in danger to evacuate from the

building first. Meeting participants felt that, as far as products were concerned, fire safety equipment must be adapted to the people who will be using

it. For example, in some hospitals, there are

series of fire doors which are held open for stretchers by electrical magnetic devices; in instances of fire, the electricity is cut off, and

the fire doors close automatically to the "safe"

position. Other safety features which were

discussed included railings on ramps or shallow

steps for those who rely on crutches or canes for

their mobility; ramps at different floor levels; tactile systems for egress identification; extinguishers; smoke detectors; and alarm systems. Most of these products received only cursory

attention, but there was a great deal of discussion on various kinds of alarm systems for individuals with different types of handicaps. The major problem in discussing alarm sys- tems was that of notification of the deaf occupants of a building, which is a complex issue. Different types of alarm systems are appropriate

for different building types; for example, a resi- dential alarm for a deaf person might be attached

to a device which could vibrate a bed or a couch

and notify the person through his/her sense of touch. Another option is to attach a system to a

flashing light of some kind (a strobe was suggested), so that the deaf person could respond

visually. These types of redundant cueing for alarm systems would be effective for everyone. Further problems arise here; whose responsibility is it ultimately to provide these special safety features for the disabled who use or who

might be using the buildings? Should it be up to the building owners, the landlords, the insurance companies? If the onus of responsibility is on the

landlord, then there is incentive for him to discriminate against the disabled person who is looking for a place to live. And yet, there is overwhelming responsibility to provide fire protection for all people in all buildings. Other features of alarm systems which came

under scrutiny were location, pitch (a problem for those who hear only certain pitches), and the amount of information given by the alarm. The

point was raised that, with the increasing average

121
age of Americans, there will be a corresponding

increase in aural and visual problems. In fact, the majority of those individuals at present who

are described as handicapped or disabled are over

65. Therefore, t-he developing movement toward

universally designed products which would be

effective at all levels and for all types of people,

is to be encouraged. Standardization of alarm systems in all parts of the country would also aid

in the notification, movement, and evacuation of building occupants. The important question is how many more

people can actually be saved by using what kinds

of devices?

^. Codes and Standards Codes address construction issues, rather than the administrative procedures which are

involved in providing for the safety of large numbers of people. Unfortunately, building codes, which state the minimum requirements

for different features of a building's construction, encourage the satisfaction of these mini- mums only. A conflict is thus created between what the building should be and the end result. One of the meeting's participants called

for a national review of building codes with regard to life safety for the handicapped. He

used as examples of code discrepancies the

elevator codes of Massachusetts and Washington,

D.C., saying that in Massachusetts, stair-glides are allowed but not non-stationary chairs (i.e., wheelchairs) on escalators; and that the D.C. code insists on enclosed elevators, eliminating the possibility of porch lifts and outside

elevators. It was generally agreed that a

national review would identify such

discrepancies, but that such a review would

require an examination of the entire code- making process, in which the handicapped should be involved. The responsibility of code officials is a major one. Although disabled persons are aware

of and willing to take on personal risk when they

enter buildings, it is ultimately the building code

officials who are responsible for them. This is a

philosophical issue which makes the whole question of developing codes for buildings which take

into account the special problems of the handi- capped very complicated. Hence, the desire among the participants to be involved by repre- sentation in the code-making process. As was mentioned in the preceding secion on products, codes could be used to standardize

various products and equipment, so that fire safety for the handicapped would be treated on a

national level. Redundantly cued alarm systems, smoke detectors with extra features such as

sirens or lights, color-coded exit keys, tactile systems for egress identification—all could be

standardized so that they would be useful, not

only to the handicapped population, but also to the able-bodied population.

5. Recommendations/Research Needs Some of the recommendations for research work which were made during the Consumer

Interests Workshop are listed here. This is by no means a complete list; it is merely provided to indicate major areas which require work, and to serve as a starting point for further discussion.

1. More product research:

2. Further investigation of the problems

of those with neurological disabilities; those with epilepsy, dyslexia,

or some kind of drug addiction which

renders them incapable of responding

in emergency situations.

3. Training of emergency personnel as part of regular fire department training. This should be added to the

firefighter requirements (NFPA 100).

^. Use of existing research results on

fire-resistive materials for the

clothing and furnishings of the handi- capped.

5. Advanced fire planning by local and

neighborhood fire departments.

6. Coordination and notification of fire safety procedures and plans for the handicapped.

7. Identification of gaps in knowledge of the handicapped with regard to their own levels of risk.

6. Information Transfer Sources At the close of the meeting, the participants developed lists of sources of information on fire safety and the handicapped; what follows is a list of the sources which were mentioned at the meeting.

• National League of Cities, Washington, D.C, Robert Hill. • Paralyzed Veterans of America, cf. pamphlet "Wheeling to Fire Safety" • The Paraplegic News

122
Council of Senior Citizens, Washington, D.C.

Las Vegas Fire Departnnent, Las Vegas, Nevada

Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU), "New Options" classes—unfortunately, they give little emphasis to

fire safety. Michigan Independent Living Center The Chicago Institute of Rehabilitation
PARTICIPANTS -CONSUMER INTERESTS WORKSHOP

Ronald L. Mace, AIA, Chairman

Barrier Free Environments, Inc. Post Office Box 3063^^ Raleigh, NC 27612 Tom Fields National Park Service 5600 Columbia Pike

Falls Church, VA

or 932^ Cherry Hill Road

Apartment 2 College Park, MD 207^^0 Eunice Fiorito Advocacy Office

Rehabilitation Services Administration

U.S. Department of HEW

330 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20036

Laurie Gerken

Independent Living Research Utilization Project

1333 Moursund Avenue

Houston, TX 77030 Ruth Phillips Architectural Research Laboratory

University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI ^^8109 Charles Sabatier Paralyzed Veterans of America

4330 East West Highway , Suite 300

Washington, DC 2001^^ Frank Bourgin Federal Emergency Management Agency

nil 18th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Peggy Smith

Federal Emergency Management Agency

1735 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Bernard Levin Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 20234

Jennifer Gagnon CCPT, Building 220, A353

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 20234

Earle W. Kennett Programs Director AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Gretchen Bank

Project Manager AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

J24
WORKSHOP 6: PRODUCTS

Reported by Sharon L. Machida AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

1. Introduction The Products Workshop was the last in a

series of six Workshops on Life Safety and The

Handicapped convened by the AIA Research

Corporation, the Task Force on Life Safety and

the Handicapped, and the National Bureau of Standards. It was held on September 20-21, 1979

in Sacramento, California. The workshops were

sponsored by the U.S. Fire Administration and

constitute a preliminary stage in the develop- ment of a program to provide fire safe environ- ments and emergency procedures in buildings for handicapped individuals. This summary paper of the workshop findings was prepared as a basic document for the November Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped to be held at the National Bureau of Standards in Gaithersburg, Maryland, sponsored by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The charge before the Products Workshop was to concentrate on the availability, need, use and future development of products and systems

to assist in providing for the fire safety of handicapped individuals. The specific objectives

of the workshop were:

1. To define problem areas;

2. To rank problem areas;

3. To identify the state-of-the-art in product development;

k. To identify the voids that should be

filled before the problem areas can

be solved;

5. To synthesize the problem areas,

existing knowledge and knowledge

gaps.

The process used to identify problem areas and

the state of product development today was to design a matrix that would facilitate the or- ganization of ideas and information related to available and necessary products. This paper will

first report on the workshop's findings on problem areas and priorities among those

identified problem areas. This information is presented in a matrix format with definitions. The next section of this paper discusses areas of concern and limitations to solutions to the prob- lem areas. The final sections present the philos- ophy of the workshop participants on how product development should be approached and recommendations on further work in this area.

2. Definition of Problem Areas There are many individuals, companies, universities, fire departments, and other groups of people working in various capacities on the development of products to assist people with

various disabilities in fire emergencies. These

products and systems may be focused on

providing general safety and also be adequate for groups with certain types of handicaps. Where

are the problem areas in product development? Are there serious voids in product development?

There was general consensus that the level of sophistication and development in products far surpassed the level of awareness and education

of the general population regarding the issues of

fire safety (for the handicapped and for the ablebodied). Most of the products and systems

discussed at the workshop are available but not

in wide use. Some of the new or developing products

discussed during the workshop are:

125
• "5-Minute Air Capsule" (Robertshaw

Controls Co., Life Support Products Marketing Group, Anaheim, CA.): a

plastic bag-type device that is held over

the head while escaping from a fire. • "Porta-Tel" (Specialized Systems Inc., San Diego, CA.): a portable, battery- operated telecommunicator for deaf, hearing- and speech-impaired indivi- duals. • "Fire Guard" Flexible Wall System (Won-Door Corporation, Salt Lake City, Utah): an automatic folding fire door system which is manually retractable by

individuals with limited physical capabilities (individuals in wheelchairs, small

children, etc.). • "Talking Lights" (being developed by Smith Kettelwell Institute of Visual Science, San Francisco, CA.): an

infrared light receiver/ transmitter system that is being adapted as a navigation and orientation system for the blind with the capacity to transmit

three seconds of direct digitized voice communication.

• Smoke detector/alarm system for the deaf and hearing-impaired (Specialized Systems Inc., San Diego, CA.): a system consisting of a smoke detector, sound sensor, receiver box, strobe light, motor vibrator attached to the bed, and

a pre-recorded cassette that can be

inserted in an adapted telephone. This system is in the prototype stage.

In outlining problem areas, workshop partici- pants concentrated on products—product devel- opment as distinct from constraints to rapid commercialization, education, compatibility with codes and standards, and other concerns. These

concerns were addressed after identification of problem areas in product development and the ordering by priority of these problem areas. A three-dimensional matrix was used as a

tool to locate problem areas. The axes of this matrix were defined as follows: X-axis Occupancy Type

Y-axis Life Safety Process

Z-axis Disability Type

Definition of Terms

X-Axis: Occupancy Type

The definitions used for major occupancy

types are "worst case scenarios"~the most

inclusive for each category. These are: • Residential-Single Family: This category

includes mobile homes.

• Residential-Multiple Family: includes

high-rise, short-term stay (guest in apart- ments, hotels, and motels), occupants are

asleep. • Commercial: this category includes

malls, multi-storied shopping centers, above and below grade. • Office high-rise, multi-use, above and below grade.

• Industrial: large, heavy industrial complexes. • Public Assembly: more than 50 persons

for a multitude of activities, multistoried. • Institutional: includes rest homes and

prisons, environments where there are requirements for care, supervision and/or

restraint and a high degree of regulation

of behavior of occupants.

• Educational: an environment where there are six or more people in a classroom

situation, implies supervision, nonsleeping, and includes multi-storied

buildings.

Y-Axis: Life Safety Process The major steps in the life safety process

that would necessitate product assistance in the form of hardware, software systems, and people were defined as follows. Each step in the process

is followed by examples of the types of products

considered in filling the matrix.

Notification

• of potential victims: smoke

detector/sound sensor/motor vibrator alarm systems, heat detectors. • of service for help: pre-programmed

telephones, cassettes, TTY's Porta-Tels,

Vial of Life (information on medical problems contained in a vial in the refrigerator). There was some discussion on the need for a

third category under the heading notification to take into account products needed for two-way

126
communication during a fire emergency. This category was not included in the matrix but could be considered in further work. Action

• in-place defense: small halon

extinguishers, fire retardant blankets, tanks of oxygen, 5-minute air capsules,

sprinkler systems.

• safe area: fire doors, electrical magnetic door hardware that keeps doors open until a fire alarm is activated and

then automatically shuts the doors by

cutting off the electricity, lights on

auxiliary power in areas of refuge and

stairwells, intercom systems.

• evacuation: ramps, specialized transports, inflatable "socks," chutes, modified elevators, toned exit identification, talking lights.

After Action Accounting

This term refers to systems for accounting

for occupants of a given occupancy type after the fire action. There are currently no systems beyond roll calls, but the possibility of developing some system for quickly determining who might be missing through bugs or other

devices was discussed. Figure 1 presents the workshop's findings on problem areas in regard to product availability referenced to the steps in the life safety process and occupancy type. This table does not take

into account specific disabilities. Please note

that the symbol "+" does not imply that products

are in wide use, that their use is enforced, or that there is no need for further development in

all areas; the symbols merely denote relative need. In all areas marked "+" there are additional needs for increased awareness, education

in the need for such products and in their use, changes in codes and standards, and changes in building design.

In order to see where the problem areas are

in product development, this matrixing process must proceed to the level of specific disabilities. Due to time constraints, the workshop partici- pants were unable to carry this process through

for each step in the life safety process, each occupancy type, and each disability type. This process was begun, though, as seen in Figure 2. Figure 2 will be discussed further in the

following section.

3. Priorities and Voids The problem areas indicated in Figure 1 were

not referenced to specific disability. In order to further refine an analysis of problem areas, the process begun in Figure 2 should be carried out with a large sample. Some ideas and

considerations for doing this are outlined in the recommendations section of this paper. With the information on hand, priorities in problem areas

could still be flagged at the workshop.

In Figure 1, the rows indicating the greatest need for product development are: in-place defense, evacuation, and after action accounting. Of these areas, in-place defense and evacuation would seem to warrant the most attention. The

only occupancy type which appears to be covered

adequately by appropriate products is institutional; the columns which appear to lack appropriate products the most are residential- multiple and public assembly. Under notification of potential victim in Figure 1, the checks and pluses indicate that there are adequate products already being developed. This is misleading; when the workshop

participants looked at notification of potential victim referenced to specific disabilities (Figure

2), they found that for hearing- impairments

there is a definite need for development of more

adequate products and systems. Due to time constraints, the only two

disabilities looked at for the different occupancy

types were hearing and vision, as indicated in Figure 2. It was decided that an in-depth

investigation of every step in the life safety

process, related to occupancy type and disability type would have to wait for a future survey, but workshop participants did identify those

disabilities that would warrant most attention in terms of product development related to each

life safety step. A summary is given below: LIFE DISABILITIES SAFETY MOST IN NEED

PROCESS OF PRODUCTS

Notification

of Hearing

potential (the need here

victim is systems development

for different occupancy

types)

of fire Movement

service Manipulation

for help Vision Voice

Size

127
in-place defense

safe area evacuation

Movement

Manipulation

Vision Mental

Life Support

Size Strength

Life Support ^Movement

Manipulation Hearing

Vision Mental

Life Support

Ennotional Size Strength After Action Accounting all disabilities

3. Costs of placing the product or system

in Duildings.

If-. Product development and commercialization costs.

5. Enforcement (including codes and standards).

6. Practicality: is it really practical?

7. Maintainability/Reliability.

8. Education/Training

9. Conflicting constraints: if you change

a building element to accommodate

the handicapped, have you compromised

safety? Has an element designed to facilitate egress compromised access?

10. Political priorities (funding).

11. Technology: is the technology avail- able? A great need in product development that was repeatedly brought out during the workshop was the need for education and training. Without

education and training, the cleverest and most

appropriate products and systems are useless.

^. Areas of Concern and Limitations

12. Is "people" a product?

13. Interface of products with the personal equipment of disabled people

11^. Testing

15. Legality The following considerations were taken into account in workshop discussion of occupancy and

building types. There may be other considerations that should be added for future work.

1. Short-term vs. long-term resi- dence.

2. Independent vs. dependent

activities of occupants. A basic limitation to workshop findings was

the limited sample size. The small group did

facilitate intense concentrated work, but this investigation of product needs should be ex- panded to include representatives from many

diverse fields. Another area of concern that came up

repeatedly during the workshop was constraints

or problems with solutions. Problems with

solutions to those areas identified as needing work are:

1. Right to risk.

2. Invasion of privacy.

5. Philosophy The philosophy of the workshop participants regarding an approach to product development

is outlined as follows:

1. Universal Design: all products must

be developed to increase the fire safety of all persons. For example, lever handles are safer than doorknobs for handicapped and able-bodied people.

2. Consensus Development: there should be direct consumer involvement in all product development projects.

3. The acknowledgement that there exist personal risks.

4. The right-to-risk decision on the part

of the consumer must be accompanied

with informed choice.

5. Consideration must be given to the

possibility of excess consumer dependency on products. For example, over- confidence in emergency breathing

128
devices may impede escape from

buildings.

6. Recommendations

1. There is a need for a rehabilitation engineering product catalog, an exhaustive list of what products are

available.

2. Consumer input to the product development process must be in- creased. This input should be organized and representatives of particular disability groups should present a consensus of the require- ments for fire safety products for

their group.

3. A specific survey should be devel- oped from the workshop matrix to

fill in product information, use

factors, and specific constraints to development. This survey could be

sent to manufacturers, fire services, ANSI, code representatives, building managers, administrators, legal groups, handicapped

groups, architects, engineers, and

contractors. A products catalog

could be developed from this matrix survey. It could differ from

the matrix in this paper in the

following ways:

a. difference in opinionmajority, minority—could be expressed in some way, similar

to consumer surveys.

b. reasons for non-use of products could be isolated: are

the reasons for non-use of pro- ducts on the market because

of 1) lack of technology, 2) economics 3) lack of education and training?

c. the focus could be on devel- oping a catalog of existing products.

4. Possible solution approaches to problem areas: Public Awareness

a. Serious efforts should be made

to approach major technical

resources, such as TRW,

Hewlett-Packard and NASA

(and other manufacturing and

research organizations and

agencies) to get involved in R & D in products related to fire safety and the handicapped.

b. Increase awareness of the problems in colleges and universities (architecture and

engineering programs) through

design competitions (national or school) and other channels.

c. Public awareness can be

increased through professional associations like the National

Institute for Handicapped Research.

• Incentives for Involvement:

a. Money

b. Academic credit

c. Contest

5. Identify and publicize funding of product development. This should be done at all levels: manufacturers, consumers, service organizations. An

example of public funding is TTY

installment funding through local health districts, and emergency

medical services.

6. Continue and increase public education at all levels on the need for products and in training in product

use.

129
Figure 1, Product Availability and Need/Occupancy Type/Life Safety Process

NOTIFICATION

• Of potential victim • Of service for help ACTION

* • In place defense

AFTER ACTION ACCOUNTING

KEY:

+ Products available; little need — Products not available; great need

/ Some appropriate products available; some need

* Areas with greatest need for product development

130
Figure 2. Notification of Potential Victim/Occupancy Type/Disability Type

Occupancy \ 1

Disability ^\ <^ Type \ /

1 . Movement

-

Res-M +

Com O

-a

+ +

Pub + +

Educ

2. iVlanipulation

3. Hearing + / / / 1 / / / 4. Vision + + + + +

5. Voice

6. Mental

7, Life Support

8. Emotional

9. Hidden

10. Size

11. Strength

KEY:

+ Products available; little need — Products not available; great need

/ Some appropriate products available; some need

* Areas with greatest need for product development

131
PARTICIPANTS-PRODUCTS WORKSHOP

Clarence Nicodemus (Chairman)

Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant Department of Rehabilitation 830 K Street Mall Sacramento, CA 9581'f Philip C. Favro

California State Fire Marshal

7171 Bowling Drive Sacramento, CA 95823

Jerry Henderson

Professor Mechanical Engineering Department

University of California

Davis, CA 95616

Dr. Gerhard G. Kunkel

Director of Engineering Won-Door Corporation

1865 South 3480 West

Salt Lake City, UT 8410^* Herman Schierenberg

Fire Protection Engineer and Regional

Director

State of California Office of the State

Fire Marshal 7300 Lincolnshire Drive Sacramento, CA 95823

Jerry Kuns

Vocational Specialist for the Blind and

Visually Impaired

Sensory Aids Foundation 399 Sherman Avenue, Suite 12 Palo Alto, CA 94306

Robert Young

Otis Elevator Company

5 Farm Springs Farmington, CT 06032 Peggy Smith

Consultant, Emergency Preparedness Planning

for the Handicapped

Federal Emergency Management Agency

1725 Eye Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20472

Jay Persensky ^ Research Psychologist Consumer Sciences Division Building 220, Room A353

National Bureau of Standards Washington, DC 20234

Sharon Machida

Research Assistant AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

Fred Jameson

Fire Education Officer Las Vegas Fire Department

400 East Stewart Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101
AUaiENTATION OF THE REPORT BY THE PANEL ON SELF PROTECTION

Clarence L. Nicodemus

Panel Vice Chairman Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant

625 Doyle Lane

Dixon, California 95620

I do not feel that the Panel adequately developed a complete definition of the self-protection. The report discusses recommendations for actions by organizations, groups or other people to "help" the disabled

(or other) person in his plight, but it fails to state clearly what that plight is and what the individual can do for himself. (The terms his, he, him used throughout this paper are meant to be unisexual and not prejudicial.) My comments here are an attempt to better illustrate the nature and constituent elements of the personal self-protection problem as well as advance a general process to help any individual solve this pro- blem in his own unique setting. System Definition

Self-protection, in my view, boils down

to a process of problem solving steps that a person takes which leads ultimately to im- provement of his chances of survival in a building fire emergency. In the simpl^t

form, the process considers three aspects to the entire system: the individual; the

environment; and the interface between the

two. Pictorially, this can be shown as follows

Figure 1 Obviously, the aspect of the system over which each person has the greatest control is himself. Therefore, ways to adapt himself to meet the potential threat should be of the highest priority. Following that, changes

can be made in the environment (buildings, systems, and other people) and finally, changes in, or the development of Interfaces

(ways of interacting with buildings and building systems through controls, alarms,

signs, etc.) can be effected which will enhance survival. Before listing specific action steps,

it is useful to further describe the environment and interfaces in order to understand their respective subcomponents. By expanding the concept shown in Figure 1, the environment can be thought of as having two parts: buildings with related hardware and

groups of people other than the person of central focus. Thus:

Figure 2 133
With Figure 2 as a conceptualization of the basic elements necessarily interacting

in the building fire self-protection system, anyone can begin a logical thought process

of obtaining necessary information about the building and its features; about the other people who will likely be involved cmd about

the interactions or interfaces that will make

it all function more effectively. The "Matrix on Problems and Occupancies" (ref. page 3 of the report) *developed by the Panel clearly lists and categorizes the problems. They fall generally into the three basic

circles shown in Figure 2, so I will not enlarge on them. It should be pointed out, however, that each of the interfaces (areas labeled 1, 2, 3 and 4) in Figure 2 are unique

and offer insight into the process of seeking

solutions. Individual /Building Hardware Interface

(Area 1.) This area represents the ways in which

a person, alone, can make use of building

or building systems, products or facilities

to protect himself. These include: (no specific priorities assigned)

exit paths/directions;

exits and exit door hardware

;

refuge areas and access doors/panels

;

elevators/controls

;

escalators

;

alarms/notification

;

2-way communication with other areas

;

fire extinguishers;

personal protection devices (Halon gas vessel, 5 minute air bag, etc.); sprinkler systems

;

others

.

Clearly, the design and construction, placement or location, and appropriateness of each of these items is the heart of this entire issue. However, in this listing, I am referring specifically to an interface of a single person with system or product. The aspect of masses of people interfacing with

the building (Figure 2, Area 3) carries its own concerns and is discussed later. Against

the single person-building interface is cast

all of the functional limitations that can be expected for a total spectrinn of people in any building fire emergency. Some may be disabled prior to the emergency, others may

be effectrvely disabled by the emergency. All must be considered in the design of this principal interface area.

Group/Building-Hardware Interface

( Figure 2, Area fl) As mentioned earlier, the list of concerns for the single person-building inter- action can be mostly duplicated here, except

the objective is different. In this case,

the objective is the design or arrangement

of buildings, systems, facilities, etc. which allows rapid passage of large numbers

of individuals, without causing increased

threat to any single one. Thus, unlike the previous situation in which a person must be able to act alone, in this interface many

people will be present to open doors, operate controls, effect communication, etc. The question posed is: Will the building design allow for this mass exodus without

severely jeopardizing any individual's ability for self protection? Immediately

called to mind are the instances of crowds

pushing, shoving, trampling its members in a survival effort. Thus, here consideration

is given to: exit door, corridor size and capacity? elevator size and location;

controls and interlocks which prevent recycling and hence evacuation by elevators

;

refuge area size; exit paths

;

alternative evacuation routes;

others

.

These concerns are again separate and district but closely related to the ways in which people interact (which will be ad-r dressed next) . In this Group/Building

Interface, as before, consideration must be given to a total spectrum of people's ability to function as part of a group flow

process. Chronic or emergency induced blindness, physical limitations, emotional

disabilities, etc. must be taken into account in the design and planning process.

Single person/Group Interface

( Figure 2, Area 2.) A person in a building fire emergency

must often rely on another person or on a group of people to enhance his own chances

of self-protection. For the disabled person,

this interface can be critical, expecially

since products for effective, total self- protection have not yet been developed. In some ways, this interaction is easier to deal with because the "product" in this case is a human being who can learn, think react and

create ways to help another as the emergency

demands; a product design must predict the circumstances.

*See page 65 of this report.
In other ways, the other person as a "product" is not entirely dependable or predictable in an emergency. Thus, this interface addresses the interpersonal concerns

that will maximize the help provided to an

Individxial by others: information and knowledge about specific disability and in general; knowledge about a person's own limitations; willingness to be "handled" and to explain how it should be done; development of "buddies" who will know

a person's where abouts; develop and participate in drills to reduce temerity and increase confidence

in others for "helping". These considerations naturally vary

according to occupancy type and nature of activity, but they are a vital interface in the self-protection of each individual, no matter the ability or disability. Individual/Group/Building Interface

( Figure 2, Area 4) It is this final area in which all of the others come together in amalgamation

(or lack of it) to form a fire emergency

plan. It is here that the realities of the building physical plant, with all of its assets and limitations must be carefully

analyzed and augmented or countered by a plan

of action of the persons contained therein.

The plan must consider: location of hazards; effective alternate routes of evacuation; assignment of personnel to aid others if possible; means of accountability for each person

if possible; specific input from emergency services

personnel; alternate actions if the building

systems fail; others' Included should be all of the items so often cited as elements of a good site emergency plan. It must be added however,

that several items should be stressed for each person to derive maximum self-protection

benefit: Personally review and participate in the plan development. Make the plan "live" in ones own mind,

at all times, by imagining senarios

that challenge the plan. Continually press for building or building system modification if it does not

meet a need. Engage others when appropriate to discuss the plan or some senario. Insure that someone else in the building

is concerned with improvement of the plan. Learn more about the characteristics of fire and how to handle and predict its spread

Be selfish in selecting the locations within a building for long term activities; minimize risk and exposure

to hazard. Take time to review and criticize buildings /plans which lack good fire emergency self protection capacility. Do not patronize (when possible) those facilities (hotels, motels, stores, e etc.) that have obviously ignored good

fire protection planning — and tell them and a local fire official why, in writing.

In essence, the best defense in a building fire self-protection struggle is an aggressive and selfish offense. If tomarrow,

all persons who spend anytime in buildings

would assume the offense, most the problems

causing building fire related deaths would

soon disappear.

135
K STREET MALL PROJECT

(Emergency Egress System) Clarence L. Nicodemus

Senior Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant

Project Technical Director William H. Webster

Business Services Manager

Project Administrator

Department of Rehabilitation

830 K Street Mall

Sacramento, California 95814 The Califonria State Department of Rehabilitation, with its major

central office located in a renovated and remodeled building at 830 "K" Street Mall in Sacramento , e xperienced a desperate need for and sponsored the development and implementation of the Project described herein. It is a unique, integrated fire protection system which provides

for adequate emergency egress for all members of the Department , not only those in the wheelchairs, but those required to remain and help

others in the wheelchairs and those who might have been hampered from evacuating the building in the event of a fire. The heart of the total building system is an automatically deploying flexible fire barrier which protects the elevator shaft and creates a refuge area on each

involved floor.

The California State Fire Marshal's

Office has closely cooperated with the Project because of major concern at the state

and national level for what a local fire official expressed as "frustration" in fulfilling his responsibilities to the handicapped. Basically, the frustration boils

down to a struggle between a fire official's

legal responsibility to provide emergency protection to all occupants of a given building and a disabled individual's right to risk

and equal treatment under the law. The principal factor causing this frustration is the lack of adequate egress systems.

Sections 501 through 504 of the 1973 and 1978 revised Rehabilitation Act mandate nondiscriminatory action by an employer on the basis of disaljility of an individual. In addition, it mandated the removal of all access barriers for the disabled so that, in effect, there would be no handicapping as far as gaining entrance to a job. In reality,

this "sword" is double edged, that is, once access is gained to the building for employment or any other purpose, and that access

is to floors other than grade level, egress becomes a problem of greater magnitude than access for employers.

136
Inability to provide egress from or find refuge in a building for a person during an emergency, carries great impact from the standpoint of an employer's personal liability. Considerable concern is being expressed by employers naming this liability as a principal reason for not hiring handicapped

people

1 . Approach

As experience was gained in dealing with

the various constraints and aspects of the problem in meeting the needs of disabled

people, it became very clear that many needs

of the population as a whole have been

neglected or ignored in the general body of data available for building design, fire surpression system design, and emergency

planning in general. Once into the investigation and definition of the problem the need for a much more global view for the Project became clear. Evaluation of the specific needs of a limited population (i.e., the disabled) was broadened to correctly view the needs of the entire population. This is entirely appropriate since it is within the entire population that the Rehabilitation Act mandates

the disabled be involved. And it is with

the needs of the entire population that some

of the largest undefined system constraints

exist in trying to define the emergency

egress problem for the disabled as described below under Rationale for Systems Objectives.

2 . Methodology

Through the mandate and support of the Department's Director, Edward V. Roberts, himself a severely disabled quadriplegic, William H. Webster, and Clarence L. Nicodemus

conducted limited investigations involving possible alternatives to emergency egress system mechanisms for the "K" Street Mall

Building. In addition, an interagency agreement contract was initiated with the Departments of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, and Physical Medical and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine, University

of California at Davis in order to establish

a "brain trust" group to more thoroughly

evaluate problem constraints and alternative

solutions. The focus for these investigations was constantly maintained on the specific retrofit needs for the "K" Street

Mall Building in order that an immediate

solution be found.

3. System Objectives

The majority of the Project was conducted then in this manner: the work

statement presented to the UC Davis group was in the form of system performance

objectives for whatever type of emergency

egress system that was to be envolved. These objectives are as follows:

* be useable by all human beings in the building at any given time,

* be fool-proof, simple to understand

and to operate,

* be storable for long periods of time without affecting Its operational

function,

* not obstruct normal and emergency

pathways as specified by codes,

* provide Immediate (four minutes or less) safe refuge for all persons, including those with limited mobility,

* facilitate or enhance existing emergency systems (i.e., alarms, elevators , stairwells , etc .

)

* handle wheelchair and all attached wheelchair equipment as well as the wheelchair occupant,

* be operable by a paraplegic alone, but may permit an attendant for the needs of a quadriplegic,

* be operable by the blind, the deaf, and the mentally disabled without

assistance,

* accommodate seelng-eye dogs and other assistive devices required for mobility,

* have minimum dollar Impact on im- plementation in existing buildings,

* require no adaptation or attachments

to wheelchairs . (A visitor in the building must be accommodated

equally as well as a regular employee in a wheelchair)

* not require the ambulatory to remain

in the building to assist the nonambulatory (except in the case of

the quadriplegic)

* Not rely on any external power

sources for its junction. These performance objectives are considered by the Project to be minimal, but certainly not exhaustive. As work continues,

these will be and have been to some extent modified, mitigated, or otherwise met.

137
4. Rationale for System Performance

Obj ectives

The justification for establishing

these performance objectives comes from an analysis of the make up of the total population for any given day in the noinaal business of the Department of Rehabilitation. Theoretically, this population should

reflect generally the same makeup in all public agencies (or private business for

that matter) exercising the proper hiring

practices.

5. Functional Limitations of the General Population

The nation's population is made up of

a multitude of people all with different capabilities and disabilities, handicapped

only where there are barriers placed in pursuit of needs. Barriers can be of many

variety and description, and need not be hardware or architectual . They can be

social, (i.e., language), economic (excess costs) , perceptual (non-understood symbology) , sensorial (not able to be seen, heard or felt) , attltudinal (prejudice)

,

informational (misrepresentation), etc.

Functional Lack of System Considerations Ability to ; Constraints Mobility Move or propel Safe area re- oneself horizon- fuge must be

tally or verti- close by or

cally. quickly transported in order

to meet a four minute "rule of thumb" smoke environment

survival time requirements

.

Manipulation Physically op- All controls erate controls must be exof various tremely simple

kinds. and operable by gross motor activities only; all controls within 40 inches above the floor. Hearing Detect alarms Provide visual

and follow and tactile audible instruc- alarm systems, tions

.

All of these barriers exist in one form or other and must be considered in the planning effort for a total emergency egress

system. These barriers are not limited to the disabled population, and are handicapping

to abled bodied individuals. An excellent

example of a nondiscriminatory handicapping

architectual barrier is the spherically

shaped door knob. Obviously, this shape of door knob handicaps a double upper extremity

amputee because there are no functional hands and fingers available to squeeze and rotate the knob . But the same can be said

for a fireman with burned hands, a housewife carrying a child, an arthritic elderly

person, a stroke victim, a child with grease

or water covered hands, etc. Thus, the need

to consider the total population as a spectriim of needs, shared by all members, either

on a temporary or permanent basis, is a much

more realistic design approach of any system, but especially an emergency egress system.

The following chart lists the major

(but not all) functional considerations to be taken Into account in designing an emergency egress system. These functional con- siderations are related to specific dis- abilities and then to project constraints which will hopefully mitigate any handicaps

that might evolve for those using the emergency egress system.

Sight Detect and Provide audible follow visual and tactile alarms and alarms and instructions. Instrucitons. Perception Mentally under- Provide nonstand controls language spe<^- and instruc- ciflc instructions (through tion and con- differing trol directions, languages lack use clearly

of education, understandable presence of symbolic in- learning dls- structions , use

abilities, pre- psychologically

sence of develop- appropriate mental disability control Inor loss of other structions mental Integrative (in an capability) emergency a person wants

to push on a door to get

out, not pull on it)

.

It would be well here to review a list

of "handicapped" individuals which the reader may find surprising when thought of In this context, but which must be con- sidered in planning:

138
Children and Visitors 6.2 Model Children and visitors fall into the category of having perceptual difficulties

in an emergency in that they are unfamiliar with surroundings. In the case with the former, they may not understand many of the more obvious instructions. Pregnant Womem, the Arthritic

and the aged Pregnant women, the arthritic and the aged all fall generally into the category of mobility considerations and that in an emergency situation, emotions and psychological effects may render them unable to adequately egress either horizontally

or vertically.

"Totally Abled Bodied" Persons During an emergency of any sort may

become victims of injury which will render them functionally disabled in any one of these five categories.

6. Major Results of the Project

Besides the generally beneficial result

for the Department of having explored and become involved with the need for emergency

egress planning, the Project has developed

several very specific results

6.1 Problem Definition

System constraint analysis. As ex- plored briefly above, the Project has brought into focus many of the primary concerns in developing a system which must adequately funciton for all members of a given building population. These are the kind of considerations that need to be assessed for each building site in terms of retrofit for existing buildings and in terms

of new design criteria for future buildings.

The use of these analyses are the first step

in a realistic planning of emergency egress needs

In the conduct of the analysis and especially in comparison of objectives with

available data, a great number of deficits

were found: inadequate code specifications

to meet the needs of the total population; inconsistant code requirements; total lack

of data for human performance in an emergency

or fire environment; contradictory data in codes as compared to research (for example, sprinkler secondary effects on life safety, smoke reiaoval capabilities, toxic gas generation from new materials) and many

others

The bottom line of this effort is the first modeling of a standardized design approach for self analysis and evaluation by

other public agencies for emergency egress

and life safety planning.

6.3 Solution After considerable exploration and brainstorming of alternatives for a total emergency egress system, it became clear

the problem naturally breaks separates into

two uniquely identifiable, yet fully integrated parts: 6.3.1 Safe Refuge Area on Each

Floor Level

This meets the requirement for rapid physical removal from the immediate threat

to life safety. For the K Street Mall

Building, a system of automatic operable, flexible fire rated smoke and gas barriers

were utilized to form safe areas on each

floor and to provide an integrated buildingvide vertical egress protection system. Installation was completed on October 1, 1979. 6.3.2 Vertical Egress Enhancement With or without a safe refuge area, eventual evacuation of a building Involved

in fire emergency will be necessary; the refuge area merely ''buys" time. The realistic alternative avenues for vertical

egress are the elevators and staiirwells

both under the "protection" of the refuge

area. Both require enhancement to become

available to the total population before

the system will be complete.

7. System Description

The system consists of a safe area constructed on each floor to take maximum

advantage of existing egress facilities

(stairways and elevators) . The location of these safe areas were carefully selected in close cooperation with the Sfiate Fire Marshal's Office only after an analysis of the building on a floor by floor basis was made to avoid areas of likely fire potential

and to include most direct and secure avenues of egress.

7.1 Dual Purpose Placement

The placement of these safe areas was

not only for the immediate refuge they provide on each floor, but also the overall protection of the elevators for use by

personnel for vertical egress out of the

139
building or by fire suppression and rescue people entering the building during the fire. 7.1.1 Egress/Rescue

If power is available and the elevator can be used as an evacuation means, then it is protected from contamination by smoke, fire and toxic gases. Therefore, not only

has safe refuge been provided, but a major

step toward providing a protected entyy way

for fire suppression personnel has also been

accomplished since the largest stairwell in the building also lies in the safe area. 7.1.2 Property Protection

This accomplishes another beneficial

aspect of this design, namely that it prevents the transfer of fire and its precursor,

hot ignition gases, from leaping from floor

to floor vertically through the elevator

shaft. A major step has been taken in protecting the property damage of the building

through blocking a common avenue of fire transmittal from lower to upper floors.

7x2 Flexible Fire Barrier

The key elements restricting the con- struction of a solid wall refuge, 40 foot

long, were the critical need for useable

floor space and the interruption of the HVAC

air circulation for the lower level (below grade) and second floor open areas. 7.2.1 Unobstructive

Because of these key elements, the deployable flexible fire barrier system was

selected. Since no "wall" exists until the barrier is activated by a signal from a smoke detector or other device, both floor space and air flow were not obstructed.

7.2.2 Accessible/Multipass

Its touch activated opening mechanism

has been specifically modified into a "crash" panel for use by a person in a wheelchair, thus making the flexible barrier a multipass, accessible port into

the refuge area.

7.3 Vertical Egress System Recognizing that the safe area does not meet the need to evacuate a building for a given fire situation, alternatives for vertical egress and evacuation of the building were considered. Two alternatives, centering on the existing stairwell and existing elevator system were selected for

possible enhancement in this specific building. The possible enhancement of the elevator system included the addition of auxiliary electrical power provided by an automatic controlled generator system. 7,3.1 Stairwell Enhancement Concept

In place of the elevator, an alternative system was proposed to make use of the stairwell already in place. Considerable engineering design effort was devoted to developing the feasibility 6f a gravity powered vertical egress assistance system

installation.

The concept is currently in the prototype stage to test feasibility of its operation in the existing stairwell.

7.3.2 Rail System Very basically, the proposed system consists of a continuous rail beginning at the upper floor landing area and terminating at grade level. The rails serve as a track on which transport modules will be attached,

7,3,3 Transport Modules

These modules are of lightweight frame design that are to be folded and stored in a convenient, nonobstructive manner in each

landing. They are designed to be rapidly

attached for use by an individual with

limited mobility to decend the stairs in a controlled, safe, continuous fashion, 7,3,4 Controlled Decent

The system is designed to transport the entire wheelchair and person in a level attitude under controlled automatic braking with damping and partial manual override for additional speed control,

7,3,5 "Self" Operated

The system is designed so that the individual being transported can control

decent himself, or in the case of a quadriplegic, whose upper limbs may be in- volved to the extent of not being able to manipulate this simple speed control

(actually a brake) , it can be operated by the attendant or anyone else willing to accompany

the individual down the stairs,

7,3.6 Prototype While the system undoubtedly has a great many difficulties yet to be worked

out, its proposed design does meet all of

the constraints proposed above as portions m
of a total emergency egress system. Its design and prototype model formed the sub- ject of a M.S. Thesis in Mechanical Engineering by Mr. Kevin Allen, under the supervision of Professor J.M. Henderson, University of California at Davis and the

' authors

I 8. Conclusion

j Three major identifiable results have been achieved within the K Street Mall Project:

8.1 Standardized Approach

I A first model for a standardized design

for general building structures incorporating

emergency refuge areas and life safety evacuation procedures has been developed. 18.2 Inplace System Actual implementation of a fully integrated and automatic, retrofitted emergency egress system In a multistoried,

leased public agency building btoought about through cooperation of six public agencies

1 and private building ownership has been

! accomplished

i 8.3 Prototype Stairwell System

" Prototype design of a retrofitted, stairwell indwelling, gravity powered, vertical evacuation assistance system as an augmentation or alternative to auxiliary powered elevators.

9. Need for Further Work

j Much additional effort needs to be coni ducted as a result of the work described

above and as a matter of supplying an

I enormous amount of realistic design data for use by those who may be (or should be) in- volved in this process in the immediate

future. This effort should be channeled

j along the following general pathways

' 9.1 Improvement Addition of alarms and strobed lights

for the deaf ; exit and safe area access delineation for low visibility; 2-way oom:^ nunications between safe areas and command

center outside building; perssurization and/

, or fresh air flow into safe areas.

I, 9.2 Testing

This project must confirm the functional viability of the implaced flexible fire

I barrier system. This will be done on site

to the extent possible, but also in burn

tests conducted in cooperation with the California State Fire Marshal's Office, Phil

Favro, Director.

9.3 Investigations Many areas of investigation must be pursued to improve future designs and supply

data: elevator pressurization, realistic human performance/characteristics in a fire emergency, smoke removal equipment, requirements for highrise building or large open

areas, effects on breathable environment of sprinkler interaction on fire and combustion by products, etc.

. 9.4 Education Many professional groups of people must

be advised and made aware of the total building life safety needs of the population

and to whom they can turn for information. These groups include public agencies, building designers (architects, engineers, etc.),

fire marshals and chiefs, elevator and other

equipment designers and manufacturers, the consumer (handicapped and abled bodied) and those who develop and promulgate codes and standards. The Project is dedicated to continue work in all of these areas as time and funds

permit.

10 . Acknowledgement s Many people and organizations have assisted in many different ways in order to allow this unique development to happen

among the major contributors are: Department

of Rehabilitaiton; State of Calfiornia - Financial support and total commitment^ Office

of the State Architect - collaboration on space utilization; Won - Door Corporation,

Salt Lake City, Utah - willingness to modify; flexible fire barriers to meet project needs

U.S. Fire Administration - encouragement,

interest and informationji National Task Free

on Life Safety and the Handicapped - encouragement to persist.
RESEARCH ON SAFETY TOR THE HANDICAPPED PHILOSOPHY AND PRIORITIES . A.F. VAN BOGAERT Brussels

.

1 . An overall philosophy of fire safety research and development methods needs a preliminary analysis of the safety notion into its components.

2. Safety in a building is a complex notion indeed, depending on

- the design and construction of the building (constant

factor)

;

- the contents of the building (variable factor)

;

- the occupants' behaviour (highly variable factor).

2.1. The users ' daily avocations breed a multicellular

mosaic of hazards which are constantly challenging

safety in the building. Prospect and caution, pre- vention habits, self discipline, regular checking

and maintenance are the positive poles of sound safety behavior. Age, mental and physical condition,

education, assimilated information and applied ex- perience together draw the daily safety diagram of

a community.

2.2. The contents , in their turn, are relative to the occupants' activities and to their mental and physica

abilities. These activities often require apparatus,

machines, equipment, furniture and stocks that may

hide unsuspected fire and associated risks such as smoke and toxic gas generation.

2.3. The bu ild inq , as a solid environment, holds and protects its contents and the human activities inside

In its design and structure it should closely match

all the dimensions of these functions, including

those which aim at fire safety.

142
3. Diagram 1 shows an analysis of these components into their respective factors, their interactions and their final impact on the safety level of a building. The synoptic table

(Managerial Aspects of Fire Safety for the Handicapped)

produced by Panel 5 was based on these considerations.

Diagram 1; Components of the SAFETY notion ; lo gical growth philosophy of fire prevention norms.

4. The diagram clearly indicates that all fire safety research and development work should depart from the human

factor. This specially applies to fire safety for the handicapped, whose mental and/or physical shortcomings should be

143
compensated by

- their special education relative to risks, recognition of danger, protection and flight from threat, including personal

devices

;

- education of normal people as to adequately assist handicapped

in emergency situations;

- special arrangements regarding the fire load of the contents

in the building;

- special features in the design, construction and equipment

of the building;

- adaptation of existing buildings.

5. These compensations require urgent research and organization in both psychological and technological fields, to be confirmed by changes in legislation, norms, standards

and codes

.

Notwithstanding the complex interrelations of the compensative remedies, some technological research on 3 issues

seems to deserve immediate priority, since they are of life importance for both handicapped and non impaired individuals, and since they may need more time to be solved than other

items

.

These subjects are : 5.1. A smoke - and fireproof protected elevator, kept in action

during emergencies, thus enabling non-ambulatory people

to evacuate vertically in all circumstances.

5.2. An official scale enabling to measure the degree of safety

of an existing building (taking into account possible

special risks) . An appropriate scale should apply to the use of the building by handicapped (especially non ambulatory) individuals .(*

)

5.3. A survey of the most appropriate measures to cope with

different safety insufficiencies in existing buildings used

by normal as well as by handicapped people. The motivation

for this priority lies in the fact that the stock of existing (often unsafe) premises holds an enormous number

of users (potential victims) compared to the future capacity

of the buildings to be erected in, say, the next decade. Note : I cannot at all agree with the vision expressed in the safety value scale produced by panel 3 (Refuge Areas) . The lower half of this scale seems to lack some logic : if one is prepared to accept buildings with a safety degree 0 or 1, the scale is quite useless. Moreover, according to the proposed scale, the only unacceptable buildings would

be those that have less than no safety value. As far as I know the absolute lower limit of value is zero.

144

* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ; J980 311.046/146
NBS-114A (REV. s-78> U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBS SP 5852.€k>v*t Afti^ston No. 3. R<sci{Jte«f s Accession No,

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Fire and Life Safety for the Handicapped: Conference and Preparatory Workshop Reports

5. Publication Date July 1980

7. AUTHOR'S) Bernard M. Levin, Editor

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

18. Preject/Tash/Work Unit No.

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fS(r«(, City, st^te, ZIP) Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped, AIA Research Corp., U.S. Dept

of Health, Education , and Welfare, President's Comm. on Emolovment of Handicanned . Veferanc; Admin. Nat-. Vitp Vr-ntprt

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

... , Final „ , „, , 14. Sponwfing Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-600082

[ 1 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, Is attached.

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less laclual summary of most significar^t mlormatior^. If document includes a signilicant bibliography or On November 26-29, 1979, the National Bureau of Standards hosted a Conference on Fire Safety for the Handicapped where 80 experts discussed the problems of the handicapped in fire emergencies, safety procedures, and hardware that upgrades their

safety. The major work of the conference was conducted by seven panels that met

in parallel: overview, alarm systems, refuge, egress, self-protection, management

actions, and emergency service actions.

Six workshops were held in preparation for the conference during August and September 1979 in the area of life safety for the handicapped in emergencies. The workshops were: codes and standards, emergency preparedness planning, building

design, education, consumer interests, and products. Each of the 13 panels and workshops prepared a report containing background information and the recommendations

of the panels. This document contains the 13 reports, the speeches at plenary

sessions and supplementary comments by some of the participants.

17. KEY WORDS (-six to twelve entries: alphabetical order: capnaUze only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name: Building codes; building design; building fires; building management; egress; emergencies; escape; evacuation; fire alarm systems; fire departments; fire safety; handicapped; life safety; refuge.

18. AVAILABILITY (^Unlimited

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1

' Order From Sup. of Doc, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402

i

i Order From National lechnical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES 154

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE) UNCLASSIFIED

2?. Price $5.00

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

foreign S/fc-16'. Single copy. S3 domestic; $3.75 foreign. NOTE: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers,

students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies. Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE; The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1 1 55 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems. Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies. Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office. Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FIPS and NBSIR's—from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended.

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717(38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form. BIBLIOGRAPHIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES

The following current-awareness and literature-survey bibliographies

are issued periodically by the Bureau:

Cryogenic Data Center Current Awareness Service. A literature sur- vey issued biweeklv. Annual subscription: domestic $25; foreign

$30. Liquefied Natural Gas. A literature survey issued quarterly. Annual

subscription: $20.

Superconducting Devices and Materials. A literature survey issued

quarterly. Annual subscription: $30. Please send subscription or- ders and remittances for the preceding bibliographic services to the National Bureau of Standards, Cryogenic Data Center (736) Boulder, CO 80303.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. S300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

SPECIAL FOURTH-CL^SS RATE BOOK

1298