Reference puli- _ cations

NBSIR 80-1965

Fire and Life Safety for the

Handicapped

CONFERENCE AND PREPARATORY WORKSHOP REPORTS

I

B. M. Levin, Editor

Supported by

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Office of Mitigation and Research, and the

U.S. Fire Administration

Washington, D.C. 20472 f*d*ral •ffl»rfl*ncv managamani •gmcy

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

' V - '1

February 1980

HQC

100

.U56

80-1965

1980

NBSIR 80-1965

FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY FOR THE

HANDICAPPED

Naticwa* lureau of Standards

likrary, Admin, gldg.

FEB 2 7 1981

Qaao

r‘C>. 26'f^hS

19 20

Reports of

THE CONFERENCE ON FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Held at the National Bureau of Standards

November 26-29, 1 979

WORKSHOPS ON LIFE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Held in Washington, D C. and Sacramento, California

August and September 1 979

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

February 1980

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

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
V

to 4b»t <i>3 J

laer VS a 3 i

-P"

/

..r

V' T;-’ v>

i‘. ^lUV

*"'v4i‘ r

fi® 3KTWdiVT31A3,3T|! ' aVtA 0«(^ • ' ‘ '

•V'k’ ‘ ^ i33^^qAOf<9VlAM i Jm]u^I >|f i l iijfc

’:i

,>•5 4

'p ^,Vj

y-* r-

'''"3

^’^

3W9 vto

^drTPvo0

(

' -J/ »t

0WA5i4IHA^ 3«t fVj^- yt3R^ |W0 ^Ot '• :>(f bi,u ^.0 pfi W'0f4

'• —iiLtltf torw^

'. K

f / , 'Wtt bra W^tfV^jiArl to

v«'

i -T - •

V. »

U'^

r ,w, . Vlll fi.Ul

' ^ fl -IK>Hn‘r'»W'''

Sill w.

oisaaWjitfio ,&u

orli b^o

1(1 iKtiHOV ^ -'- ’'mot ^.o ,iv»ipoift«w ^ j

^ *>t(nat3 -)o ii!irt>itfoVv>^] %’^yU i)hi%Vf4rjj^ qHHf!*or)»c/i3 lo^iiiW'

t^diW ttH ’hA '^Ic^O

. 0-0 .titolfi^rUs.W ; m

r

I « (

•I,

.., , 1 %'

3 Ui M ^JUfW'.aO^aiWMOO ^ti» tV^aW^HaO 3.U

\ir% w%df^^:yA -t ^jmt-ywU

,p^t4 tlPni3.,a<ttlA0MAT|> MHOifAVt

'‘/yifl M' .,- l;}
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.
V1 ui{ril

nn i i; A

iiiAv^KMi ffl .ipoil b*.*v{*»iU) J'<ik"Wrigp^' sww,;

/»r>. '0 r Tv'4tfe«4()i *K» ^icmmiiiii > tn?5^i^

r*ns t(‘ >nfi6^ iV:,,.' Y^lrn t-vMlmsm ro t«uMviic>t^ rw4ma<^ X** ^ .J>o<j4ri

(.iKfl Ja‘ :\ "bI t ;' »a hnd

•jjug.s’lfe iW-‘^s- :s^ir

Ui 'j- y “}

• >•

j.} Vv.

f.V *^*'

.^crt.v

,

f

t^‘4,

> 40*

I* ' »

# V

''V .,

'* ^ Vv

^4 , , ,j-

'f.;4‘.

,'f

Aiji^< /*'»',

I

1 V ^ *’' ^ t»
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. Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped

4. 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
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 AlA 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 AlA

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.

IV
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

V
V

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. 3ust 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

VI
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT ^ CONFERENCE ORGANIZATION

Introduction 2 Officers ^ Conference Participants

^ Workshop Participants ®

Agenda ^ PLENARY SESSIONS

Letter from Max Cleland, Honorary Chairperson 8

Monday night, November 26, 1979

Welcoming Speech from the Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped

by Howard Teich 9

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

PANEL REPORTS

Overview

Report 21 Committee Membership 24

Alarm Systems

Report 25

Panel Membership 31 Comments by Clarence Nicodemus 32

Egress

Report

Panel Membership 39

Comments by John G. Degenkolb 47

Refuge

Report ^9

Panel Membership

Comments by Donald Belles

Bert Cohn 56

Clarence Nicodemus 57

Donald Watson 59

vi i
PAGE

Self-Protection

Report

Panel Membership,

Management Actions

Report

Panel Membership,

Emergency Service Actions

Report

Panel Membership

Comments by Clarence Nicodemus,

WORKSHOP REPORTS

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

Report

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

Workshop 4: Education - September 13-1^, 1979, Washington, D.C.

Report ^^9

Participants 118

Workshop 5; Consumer Interests - September 17, 1979, Washington, D.C.

Report 11^ 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

V i i i
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, selfprotection, 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.
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. Many 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 concentrate on the adequacies, inadequacies and potential of

codes and standards in ensuring the fire safety of handicapped

individuals.

Emergency Preparedness Planning To concentrate on the availability, development and use of

emergency preparedness plans to assist in the protection and

removal of handicapped individuals during emergencies.

2
Building Design

Education

Consumer Interest

Products

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.

To concentrate on the development and use of appropriate

educational information, materials and techniques to promote

fire safety for handicapped individuals.

To concentrate on the abilities, disabilities, needs, and desires of

handicapped individuals in terms of providing for and promoting

fire safety.

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:

EGRESS:

REFUGE:

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 handicapped 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 FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Honorary Chairperson: Mr. Max Cleland

Administrator

Veterans Administration

Washington, D.C. 20U20

Conference Chairperson: Dr. Frederic Clarke

Director

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 2023^^

Project Coordinators: Dr. Bernard Levin

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Mr. Earle Kennett

Programs Director

AlA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

Technical Coordinator: Mr. Harold Nelson

Room A363, Building 224

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Task Force Liaison: Mr. Howard Teich

Stutman <5c Rothberg

150 E. 58th Street

New York, New York 10022

Arrangements Chairperson: Ms. Roseanne Paulsen

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Media Coordinator: Mr. Mat Heyman

National Bureau of standards

Washington, D.C. 20234
D.

Gels,

Recorder

O<m<moo22Hmm••

uI

D)

X"D

(/> Iz2. SroD <nI O3-

B.

“13

Q)D o3T

0)3

(U3 mnoDm

ro

y>2

0)n

3^

Q.’ 0)2oO

c"

(/» on

7T 2m2

03m

?3

(y>

j-* 3^ > 2 5"

JO

N ^ ~ 2 f- (_| *T« :3jD30)353f5 d§

«(W

v;

(T)

W

X Q. S N I -

Q) ft ^ t=

(D3

5’3

c-4 pa» O W ^ -•

!=;«» cm3 ^

c/i 7’ Onz I>I

03o

n>

?o

T3m

?3

t/) Oz

03oo3-3

t:>Zmr

c/> >r>

po2

«<()Hm2

(yi

?3O3TlC52:H5Oi-'?0^ • * * • • • •

*^*~*rti rt) *T30j ^03 O'wWCrgS.ftcoS^ 3 o. 00

CD 21

a

(1)

2i-'>i-'i-'."op

B t; crc» dOQ c t: ‘"^'T>£Ln2(»a) Oft) o S.^* 3 -O 3

JO2

0}n

(-1 f®3 mo

JOm

(U

n f® f® C/5 c 5 Ofi 3 3

3-

M

f®

(_l C/5

m > JO > > 03 m

TJ

03o C"j c

05

cn

05X00c3 nm zn~io3

CD

JOHpJO^Nppp

T3 P*C 7^

<- n> ^3

f® o I?cx

O)

T c 3 cr x-'< n ^ nXn B» O X: o t; oj =^3 ^

cyi mr

“D

T3

?3OHmnHoz o

&) OQ3O3

?32^n:<P>>> ^ ^ H O 0) O

?t=3 ^ f® f®

"1 C/)

JO Z ^ O f® n’ §2.2*5

c®

(/> <

u>3

03O

00

cu

f® 2>Z>Om2mZH

p

03

(U3

X"

jon:'073joooD'oi-'x 2 2. 3 ^ o’ J+’ o =r=r I O m ^ q ft) I'"

f®

T] T1 tr t“ 5 < T CD

f® o 2 o.

f®

t-l

JO

f®Q.Q.

C®3

C/5

n

“<

C/5 m

JO<nm

f®

m

n

m

H JO O S z 5

CONFERENCE

PARTICIPANTS

Complete

names,

addresses,

and

telephone

numbers

are

listed

with

the

individual

panel

reports.
o

Q.

OJ

i_Q.O

J=O

"(5D

TJ

DE

a> •Dou co

I/I u o

1- T3 > C m OJ uu X co —

1/1 (V E § c

(0 5 3

riiC

00u

0»

<oC

o;

1/1 L-0> a, u'i

to t/5

00c3O

>-

U

a r-5

a

d r5 riXaa

to

h“

1/1 UJ

a;u c

‘do

L.

(0 "D o coc co

JC

0>c _c

</> a

0>

*+J(d JH

<4-*

a (0 3 00

U c > ja UJ s o <TJ OJ OJ OJ x: (0

b

h- CQ

a

a

a

Oaa

a to to 2 oi a H a r-) j a a a U a

•Oc

szDOJ 2O<uDQ

UJ co

(Ou

0) DC< c

.2 <0 E B

<B

C

x: nj u a

•(-> o ^ !2x: (u P OJ .t: c

o>

a »T- ‘VI (U U- ^ n a to to tnoiariZQaiijria2

0>

I/I I/I

(L) L. •D

TJ

(0 DC

(T3

I/I i)E

nJc

-2Q.EoU

U2

si— to 5 tjj

Cfl

Q

0)ca

— 0)

ID

C c |2

=> c m 00 o u

i; 2 3 (J

CQ CO ^

(L) cc

(U

a

a

x: o 9" c

(u t3 2 ^ o

<-• c a o >, jw jr

-4 2 a ^

r-ipiHQuJria!E<a O c

x: c c !5 o

<0 j;

W S O c c =:£ c 2 -ti :§ ^o 2.9.2 J 2 s ^ S i 0QcoQuJu,[juI;^a-lQ/t^(^HS n) c +- o ?= O <-)iaXHJujt-it/iujcQaar-iQ^

to2<au

toQa<Q2<H(/>

00CoQ o c

2,

w ai L« ^C

2® >s tiO <1>

C -7 V) ^ O iff > V ^ O

CQ oa

Q UJ 2 Qi

ri

X -i (J UJ in

H

00

L.0) c -2 O c

I/I 5 o rO fO *' to I—

a cd

a<aaOX

toaao

5#

toaOX

toaao 2Otoa

UJaa<Xu

toa

UJ

cCs

UJ 6

S.

Machida

S.

Machida

G.

Bank

S.

Machida

G.

Bank

S.

Machida
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 Telch, 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

^ I ^

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.

MAX CLELAND

Administrator

'980
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 IMPORTANT STEP TOWARDS ITS TARGETED GOAL OF PROVIDING THE CONTEXT FOR CREATING

A LIFE-SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE HANDICAPPED, WHICH WILL ALSO BENEFIT THE ABLEBODIED 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 HANDICAPPED 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 K2 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 HANDICAPPED 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."

1 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 LIFESAFE ENVIRONMENT.

JO
KEY NOTE ADDRESS

JOHN 3. 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 HANDICAPPED.

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 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".

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 SIGNIFICANT 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, FELLOWWORKERS 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

^HTIP ABILITY TO FUNC-ION IN AN orEPA'^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. MA30R 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

30B PLACEMENT, TO NAME 3UST A FEW.

VA'S WORK PROGRAMS CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON THE SOCIAL PROBLEMS OF THE HANDICAPPED 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
T

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION IN OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES:

• CONFERENCE - REHABILITATION

• 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 EXCEPTIONALLY 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 94TH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES PASSED PUBLIC LAW 94-541,

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. . .

4. (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, I.E., (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 (4) 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 A117.1 -1961."

THE OTHER THREE MODEL BUILDING CODES, THE BASIC BUILDING CODE, THE STANDARD

BUILDING CODE AND THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ARE THE PRODUCTS OF ORG ANIZATIONS

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 AII7.1; BUT APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS, APPROVED BY THE

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

CODE. ^

BOCA'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-^ USE GROUPS ARE 1 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 13 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:

(4) 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.M961, 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 lOI 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
]

EXCEPTION 1: STORIES OPENING DIRECTLY TO GRADE.

EXCEPTION 2; STORIES HAVING RAMPS TO GRADE.

EXCEPTION 3: STORIES USED SOLELY FOR THE SERVICE OF THE BUILDING.

EXCEPTION 4: FLOORS OR STORIES USED ONLY AS PARKING GARAGES.

EXCEPTION 5: 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.I. 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.

20
FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

A Conference Held at The National Bureau of Standards

26-29 November 1979

OVERVIEW PANEL

7 December 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 interactive 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 buildings 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.

2.1.^. Either the history or rational

expectations related to the manner in which the efforts of a mixed population of handicapped and able-bodied persons interact with each other

or their situational environment 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.

2.4

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 emereencies and to develop an increased

capability to deal with these needs.

3 3. Recommendations

The above issues were treated by the individual panels as related to their specific charge.

They made extensive recommendations relevant

to;

A. Involvement of handicapped persons

in all phases of development, implementation, 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 information 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 individual, 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 emer-

. gency organizations; and individual

citizens, both able-bodied and handicapped.

i

1 ’ .

'.f-. !>' IpMnfrn'.^r •

o' I' .'I

J « ...f'V.c rn

in r*i

i* r V ,

Hill

• ' a

> 3 bloK'H

n • luJfiap

So

0.<1 ,n< tii ufks'^'

fc-'d >

1/- a:)iv

AIAH .^ni vciai ^

.I'lU-'v/i

'

ioA 3

unciViiA

.c."

.r. oa^r

ir*'

' J

^ . t* I , A /Ho Y

'

. ,n<^7' u

' 0 •.'i w-^.a*i

-

„ l^lcyrvK

.. y- V

JJ.'I ,M. • • '- >'

•w‘v’\''’'nvA>^r.r' J '-

iv c“, -.V/ >

'•.

• 7t)t*»bn»sH>n{ t* ’. '"

hr. 5 !. . • !Opc>!» 's ^• fiAApMci'/ IV? Ai-r .’I u tfli'.JdlM " ' y

• Ol/VI* >K

m '

» -^.v

<

'd '1 .i »' y . ,

>i* >' p.‘-i .' ''

r1

w^' }•>

..wp IHX*. t.4j;^.<Acjkp|Nh?

+i.', i"S^
OVERVIEW PANEL

CHAIRMAN

Harold E. Nelson

Head, Design Concepts Research

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3175

VICE CHAIRMAN

3asper 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

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

330 lndep>endence Avenue, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201

202-245-2170

James 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 individuals would likely rely for assistance because

these are the "most readily addressed through

code revision". Psychological aspects of 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 were identified:

1. Initiation and detection (automatic

and manual);

2. Notification

3. Communication (supplementary);

k. Auxiliary function (e.g., recapture

of elevators, shutting fans, closing

fire doors).

The panel felt that only notification and supplementary 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 simultaneous efforts must be made by all related

disciplines and fields to overcome unnecessary

duplication and excessive cost in order to maximize 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 considerations 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 supplementary 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 short26
comings in certain applications was considered

beyond the scope of this conference.

Plus signs (+) indicate that either the products 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 information 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-supportequipment-hindered - existing by means of stairways 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 triggered by hand-held devices, vibrators placed under

beds, portable radios, pagers, directional signal

transmitters, etc.

k. 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 identification 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, personalized instruction modules, guidance

from others, directional lights, etc.

4. Present exit signs have limited effectiveness 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 11)

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 54

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 assistance. 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.

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 4)

12. The panel endorses recommendations 1 and

6 of Workshop 6. Recommendation 1 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.

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.

28
Figure 1. Notification of Building Occupants

\ >

\ c \ TM \ Q. \ ^ S \ o Q. \ > \ O H

Disability

Type

1 . Movement +

Residential

1

&

2

Family

+

Residential

Other

+

Institutional

+

Educational

+

Business

+

Mercantile

+

Factory/Industrial

+

Storage

+

High

Hazard

+

Assembly

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

3. Hearing / / / / / / / / / /

4. Vision + + + + + + + + + +

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Strength + + + + + + + + + +

o>c

U)c

U)c

k-o

Oic

[n

CJo

CO

Key

+ = Products Available

/ = Product Development or Standardization

Needed

29
Figure 2 Supplementary Communication

\ w \ c X TM X Q- \ 3 <l> \ O Q. \ M >• O h- Disability X. Type

1. Movement +

Residential

1

&

2

^

Residential

Other

+

Institutional

+

Educational

^

Business

^

Mercantile

Factory/Industrial

Storage High

Hazard

Assembly

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

3. Hearing + + + + + + + + + +

4. Vision + + + + + / / / + /

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

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

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

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

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

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

11. Strength + / + + / / / / / /

1 O)

O) O) .E c c

N

c CD

CD

0) -J

k.o$

o

o

cn

Key

+ = Products or Systems Available

/ = Development or Standardization Needed

30
PANEL ON ALARM SYSTEMS

CHAIRMAN

Bert M. Cohn

Gage-Babcock & Associates

135 Addison

Elmhurst, Illinois 60126

312-530-149^f

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

Richard Bright

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3387

James Dowling

The American Institute of Architects

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006

202-785-7256

Irving Mande

Edwards Co., Inc. 90 Connecticut Avenue

Norwalk, Connecticut 06856

203-838-8441

Murvan M. Maxwell, FAIA

Maxwell <5c 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

William Tangye, P.E. Southern Building Code Congress

900 Montclair Road

Birmingham, Alabama 35215

205-591-1853

Jerry Zerdy

Center for Building Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Building //233, Room A-117

Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3783

Ken Frese

Office of the State Fire Marshal

Suite 319, Landmark Towers

101 South Whiting Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22304

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. NIOCDEMUS

Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant

626 Doyle Lane

Dixon , California 95620

(916) 678-3661

Dr. Bernard Levin

Itoited States Departmoit

of Cbnmerce

National Bureau of Standards

Washington , D.C. 20234

Dear Dr. Levin:

Below are my camients on the report of the PANEL CN ALARM SYSTEMS.

Ibere are three major areas of the Panel findings that I feel need

clarification

1. . . ."fire evacuation signal need not be received by those who cannot

take independent action." (ref. item 1. page 3 and 4 and discussion,

bottom page 6. ) *

I take strong exception to the assumption that only 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 which I would choose not to be givoi as much information, as many alternatives and as much time as possible in facing

a fire related emergeicy, whether or not I could take independent

action. A clarification of this point is necessary!

The opportunity of choice must be given to each and all persons.

2. . , ."products or systons currently being utilized for fire alarm

purposes suit the needs of the able-bodied;..." (ref. bottom 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 emeigeicy (for the purposes of

describing the functional assistance needed by disabled persons)

it has become clear to me that the so called "able-bodied" are

actually scarce in a fire and anoke involved environmoit. Snoke

reduces vision; carbon monoxide reduces physical capacity; noise

and ocranotion reduces logical thought and orientation; anxiety

reduces understanding of simple instructions; minor injury reduces

physical ability.

Iherefore, current products do not meet the needs of the ablebodied in a real anergency. We cannot make assumptions to the

contrary in this regard because it leads to a false conclusion

32

*Page numbers referred I o are those of the draft report.

Quotation is on Page 27 of this rei)orL.

December 30, 1979

ref : Conference on Fire

Safety for the

Handicapped, November 26 - 29, 1979.
that all of our efforts are aimed at "providing for needs of the

few". In reality, we are clearly just now considering the needs

of the able-4xxiled as well as the disabled person.

3.

"Technology is available, so a product cannot be far behind."

Although this is not a direct quote frcm this Panel's report, it

is often expressed and I feel that it is appropriately addressed

here vhere the discussion of needed products takes place.

Because technology exists for the developmait of products for

alarm systems, personal devices etc. , it cannot be assumed that

they will be developed. Products must go through a considerable

nunier of stages before being delivered to the market

:

1. Ihe initiation of this effort takes "up front" monies vhich

can be highly speculative and therefore hard to find and

justify.

2. Development of perfoimance criteria or specifications. These

are the guidelines for the product's perfoimance and agreement or consensus is difficult to achieve.

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

to obtain a reliable product that performs as specifications

require.

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

production.

5. Market surveys, financing, advertizing, etc.

6. Education and training in use which may lead to acceptance

by users.

All this must occur before it can be r.ssumed that the product is

available. Therefore, when 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 esqjended before the

transfer is realized. We must not be "lulled" into non-action

because of the mere availability of technology.

Member of the Board, National

Task Force on Life Safety and

the Handicapped.

CLN:sgo 33
V

' .Y:Wt.;^\CtSUT irr^HXsiir

^ «M» L' rln' iJisG

ni>:3r . Oi.uOe«[[id.«

ifiW

vdi to aboect tot yili)*wa|** t* notes vjo toj^ - abaoo adt aoJ^Tpftlaaoft ^toa )isit ®'* Li 'i .TOM) <“

.talrtid vt 9d too^ tijUmxi b o» .aXdaU^

let*. -; <iCj» at Jt :>'Mt''X«o’X I b«

VfS4^3gai| fcrtib«MM to tt5ii»i»06Jdb «y^ vxadB inm

l^>ti’cytb«>b «tr *xoS *C^J!» X3c4<wii«t aaoso^

y«U iwotvob I*no«*»eq ana^

f^trtpT^fc:j»i%^ j; S9Xn^ Ott «ruA0fX<J .t»jpt3v^ «ad IUm )£w

ot “Ji»ftt4d ovytad 16 tactai

^n.

cic i

. -mm m.^RsmR ^ '.’Otton pm

^4.«

aj»i

«cafW

:s 4

t ‘T ,

'

! N

to. s>>‘i£us»ssaii^ ia*»*i^iRui^- «as^-

*(W illbimb W a

v-.*Atf.r. ij^narg<ii9iK^ , w:» "ywa' '' ' i»p''-i3&3^?«*jdeDt

-'i a. . . --• , > „ ..•vw., .; '^'J(»''i lU.,t4«t lUlUTOj; .Tj

.03(1

^ ^iill -'J.t^ irni, :

«

T aaasi ca

• i^«S"

adj

«»hDi-0iP

it iSJNi

ttjlttl ij£^mMlrr<Cr*> iLi - *' J£

-^-

1,% >

'*• V*'

.avii'OBueiit. •6b<*i»rf ^ri c<i^^;iiy‘ nodae

1 «rttaai6o ; « n*toty

laiaar Jiijiiry tMcm

•• *^

*"-a»i&r»;« .J •t'oruO /

L rjii.i \ia» jupm c/ Us»

V’ 4lMM^7tlOlUI U> U>&

* ^ f tltnill^ffi^ r^rrW'- I»v,^r " - r(i?ofi

, ,Un« 2 f>i ' 1 ,

1 .-

g^'.ViD

»:!

; : i

I 1)1
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 2. Fire Data Needs

The Panel on Egress concentrated on the

behavioral and physical aspects of moving handicapped 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.

o The level of safety provided handicapped people should equal, as nearly as

possible, that provided able-bodied

people.

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 otherwise 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-intuitive—on protecting both able-bodied and handicapped people.

The idea that data on able-bodied p>eople 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,

p>ermits safety planners to focus on other emergency needs during a fire, needs that handicapped and able-bodied people share alike.

The available behavioral data on fire safety- -some published and some not—need to be disseminated, 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 interpreting 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 firesafety planning.

4. 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 8K2 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.

o The ANSI corridor-width standard

might be studied to evaluate the need

for increasing corridor-width,

especially in dead-end corridors, to ^8"

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 handicapped, 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 A117.1 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 provided 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 ablebodied 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 redundant 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 A117.1 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 app>ear 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

Berl, W.G. & Halpin, 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 30634

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 92648

714-960-1538

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 Carr'lina 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 33OK2 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 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.

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 population 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:

Exception 5*;

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

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 sufficient 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.

40
(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 MFPA 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 automatically 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, O. 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 way to retrieve an elevator is when

the elevator responds to the call button. These elevators also have the

key control for manual operation.

42
6SA Bulietfn FPMR V- 145 March 14, 1977

4. Guidelines . The designated official of each Facility Self-Protection

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 recommendations 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 stairway 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 handicapped (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 should 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 Organization 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.

Public Buildings Service

at* DC T7.400S

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 All 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.

Irt addition to the key-operated switch required in 1 above, heat

and smoke or products of combustion sensing devices shall be

installed in accordarice 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-l-e. The key-operated switch required by 211.3a-l,

when moved to the "by-pass" position, shall restore 'normal

service independent of the sensing devices. EXCEPTIONS:

(1) Elevators in buildings which are completely protected by an automatic sprinkler system (See NFPA No. 13 Sprinkler Systems).

(2) Freight elevators heated 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.

1)5
= 0) V — = 526 5 2

9) ^ 0) C

V- — (D ro - —

0 -0 ®

OP c o

jC ® ^ —

3 5k ~ ®

® -as "S© E

> O — — 9- ®

ra m o. M

6 > - ® £

TM i: « £ c

T3 *r > o —

P

§

5

I

^ f o

w o a o

T3 0>” O

2 ® c a M x: .b P w o SS ©

E x:

® © •“

‘ " ©

u>

©o

o>cw

c©

M

c

o

’rf M

3

Eo

u

• -S '1

©

— VJ .? c ._ S 8 o ^ E o

ro Q) _o > to •*- X) > c ^ w .3

5 C

^ 5o ro a P

$ ^ w .3 o

**

jg. © to ® O c © E c “S

«:. 7! o 5OP. 01 o^ 2C

© -S’ ® — M -C •o „ CO ®

!k -c

-5 ^ (D 3 m “ ^ a -5 "o ® ©

o 5

©

E

<= 2 w a

£W

W "D A ®

2 "o 5

> ©

r* > O

N UJ

© ‘- x: © 2 “

3 ^ «

O c C

ra © .9 aS §

•> ® 9:C 2 A & © a

D

U ©

11

S .9 2 M 3 © « *o

©

o

Ew

T3C

©

©

©

©I

§1-C> ^

> (D

si

. Il

c J ?s

9S ^M ^C

0 c

°

O c xa © 6 © CO 5 « -5 r-' Q fe 5 :: s 5. "o f'* 2 o c o _ © *5 S © E

c « • O

1 *2 o ^ T, O

"

S © ^ -' a li s I 2£2 A t c 6

Ul ® o _ o c « ^ 2 § £

©'“ I?® ® S.2 I S I 8

8 I

E CO O £

1

o c

c o

9c •

i3 & c

> k. «- o « c Ilf

S ^ c

« 5 » io^

9 2 ®

•» ® Q) w I-' *w o -5

SjO

.£ c |E

5 S s «-^ >X ® c ^ ^ aj © N UJ Q.C

o ©

H S

® O a

!l

I © ©

« x: a

c *- =

© o ®

a ^ w

© © r- k- k- i: 3 o o w _ o -®

TJ — CO c ^ © C »- ® as b- ©

a a -o - 5 © c ®

11s

« *"

S 5 ^

C "D © ©

(0 CO w c

jj - 8s0) (A C

C E ® ©

a

c— Q) ©“

a =

_ ©

®

a as w -o -o

2-6 -S;© I-

® 0-0

® a 0) **: O —

O U 3

^ c c c - ®

.2 ©

‘- •' a ‘- © “ o

o £ c

CO

^o Sic ch

© 2 g, c 2 o -o t: ’3» C ^ O OO

" «&|

OJ i C '5 © 5

o> w

® m ©

C ® C o *< © a a _ o o> ©

62 o g E 2 c®L. t; a to o c o c .E - - © ^ >

c -^ ©

© a- -a 8 -2 ^ c © "li2- 6 0) <7 a

to © "O o c c a o ©

©

c

.g&

"Oc

©a

©

2

©

CO

OJ

o>

_ca

3

TJ

TJ© >- © !T

©a T3 — c © ®

a ,- “ d CO o

o

?j «

© ®

trir^

ll

II

c ^

o «

.2 0

® —

S c "IS

2.1 © -

> o

® 2

uj &

c

^ © ©

r >.«

3 © © 05 a

c .2 a

© o c a a

© o

© ©L. s O

o o

C TJ

c

©

a

o

c

oa

3

\ o4-* TJ ©

C > ©

© ® . ©•g §

> —(0 5

%

© © *- a

©

a©

©

>«©

TM «

© o

® ^

.£8

c

'*- o ® 8 2 o ® a

ra ©

**

** 5 I? 2 E S-E, o ^ -c

* k. «- o

(MO5

oc

a a ®

© —

Sk ® ^

.9 5j ©

5l ®

5 T3 -« ©

M © U

©

a

u

.£ .3 -o "ii gll

a c .X c o © “ © o

.3 © ® o

' 5-0 5

''

: © ©

- a o

*- T3 .3 TM ® -

J a • ©

o a o o ©

2 © 3 • ©

5 .2 ° ® ©

® 3; o £ a

&^ 5 .i® ^ c.E >-.2 ^ © 2 £ “

c E o =

g 8 ® ® a

>•- © •^ © ^ _ I- o > - c o ** o ^ T 0>*— — ? C

2 « >.E 2 c ^ 1 .2 E 5 tS ^ S c 2 .6

I Q. il — • c : <2 5 5

® § 2 ® ' 5

= 3

=-

©

a

©

aM

©

O

E©

>

u

c©

o>

k_©

E©

co

©

® S -S -c ®©c®--®©c ©£.2 « o ^ 2 S -

3. .3 £

I

o ;oo<

S^=;e|

; a ^ ® >5

1 «!-| 5 ^ 5^8 1-8

©

>

_© c ©

oa o

©

1.2

® © >

o

c©

O) 0, if

©

I I

©

0

©

a ^

.E S

1

o ^8

© w

O ®

© o a T3 " I©

©

© •- f B

ra ^ a =

© ©

k. a

0 ©

« 12 1 2

© §

c ®

>• © © C 3 c a a © o

Tjs: o»0 ®

1 © a 8 {5 2 « g

o S

E o © « ®

8 5 © ^°

« © 3 = c a k. 6 2 .2 “— o T3 •=

«-> 3©

w C a E . w

2 C 0 i S’ §a ^ o • ° -a a

TJ c aa © © © a> 2 5^{2l

8 8

®

o> ©

c a

|s s

^ k. > ©

a ®

© ©

o a

©

J,£ c © _ C S-a ga 3 C 5 £ -

. O) © c o

3 k. .3 0 © p ©

a E 2 E E

.3 ® 2 © S

: a « o 2 TJ © 3 _ 1 5 ^ s ©

“

i 8

l;li|

c “ > 5 ©

n — ® c > ® a ® -8 ©

3 « 2> «

= <

o©j2J'd>-

sL ^ ® © “

© w a TJ 5 © « - ©

I 2 - c 8

o « 6 •= ©

IIHfiii-M o ^ ^ ^ £-'

»- a «

5 t§x: a

H

||

2 2 to a

© >- B 2

© c E,-

2 (Ij 5 «

a*-

© T-CM 2 >• c a

2 TJ

.3 ©

TJ .3 "S =

® O- O © 4-* k- 2 a

® .3 <9 Si

6.5 ?

>k£^i£

a UJ £ : ©

3 j ® >

£ o£ 5

t -o ojg

® a.E R « 2 gi

:= ® a-g

CM 2 ,_ g

^.s£ g

•0

-0 ®“

IIS'S •= 2 © o> ^8 E.E

5 — ©

k. © a o

1- a o Ss* ?

^ »Sl — .s ^

.C I 1

1

a 2 “ ®

2 © © .2 •5 aa > ^ °= ®

©to ©

o .2 a 'll: © > © o

® © © 3

g © g

o O o © o

i. c > ®

® Ss-r ”

S^ P> © k. g ®

© 2 © %

;C £ .a >

»- © o iJ 2 > - o ig|? |?18 E © © ©

2 2

» © a

0 E ®

© o ? .£ 25 8i 8 , 1 ® 8 2 : © ® 3 3 i © t3 O g «*- Q. ^ O O U © ^ 4- © a

3 ® TJ -

o a >- o

as ®

^6 |s

= o 2 ®

® .t © g

© c a

CM © a. a

46

key

system.

There

shall

bea

key

for

the

main

floor

switch

and

for

each

elevator

in

the

group

and

these

keys

shall

be

kept

on

the

premises

by

persons

responsible

for

maintenance

and

operation

of

the

elevators,

ina

location

readily

accessible

to

authorized

persons,

but

not

where

they

are

available

to

the

public.
John G. Degenkolb

FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER • CODE CONSULTANT

1720 Chevy Knoll Dr., Glendale, California 91206

Telephone: (213) 245-3075 November 29, 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 my 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 protection purposes. The closing force of a door is about 60% 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 minimums 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 pov;er

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 wh4ch

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.

Sincerely,

Jf

John G. De/enkolb

I ^

JGD/e

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 considered.

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 considered 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 handicapped 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

^9
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 typica'

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 Ruilt-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 v/ithin 30

days.

2.2 Panel Recommendations for Areas of

Refuge or Staging Areas: New Construction

1.

Fire Emergency Instruc cions: Posted

on each floor in a conspicuous location. All new buildings must have an approved plan to evacuate the handicapped 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.

Size of Designated Area: Net area to be determined from formula below:

10% of population to be served 0 15

s.f. /person

90% of population to be served @ 6

s.f./oerson

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 interactive 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 lYz 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 recommeinds 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 24 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

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

New Buildings

Acceptable

Range

-1

-2

-3

t

Unacceptable

Range

-N

53

Existing

Buildings
PANEL ON REFUGE

CHAIRMAN

3. Armand Burgun, AIA

Rogers, Burgun, Shahine & Deschler

521 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10017

212-867-9111

3ames Lathrop

NFPA Life Safety Specialist

470 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, Massachusetts 02210

617-482-8755

VICE CHAIRMAN i Frank Bosak

City of Memphis

125 N. Main Street

Memphis, Tennessee 38103

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

3ohn Archea

Georgia Institute of Technology

College of Architecture

Atlanta, Georgia 30332

404-894-3476

Donald Belles

Fire Protection Consultant

101 Cumberland Avenue

Madison, Tennessee 37115

615-868-8877

A. Oeffrey Shibe

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

301-921-3175

3ohn 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

^oom 5020, General Services Building

1800 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.f'

Michael 3. Slifka, P.E. Director, National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards, Inc. 1970 Chain Bridge Road

McLean, Virginia 22102

54
DRAFT REPORT ITEM

Subject ; Area of Refuge

Submitter

Donald W. Belles Date ; Nov. 28, 1979 Time : 2:35 PM

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 apeas 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 cind 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 aureas of refuge are not men- tioned 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 distribution of fire and smoke throughout the fire area, particularly if it is

compartmented , and it is not unreasonable to assume 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

.

GAGE -BABCOCK & ASSOCIATES. INC 56
CLARENCE L. NIOCDEMJS

Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant

625 Doyle Lane

Dixon , California 95620

j C916) 678-3661

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Dear Dr. Levin:

Below are my conments on the report of the PANEL ON REFUGE.

Ihe 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 quadriplegia in a wheelchair.

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 conpranise of the environment in

the SA.

c) Continuous, dynamic directicmal signals. Visual and audible

signals must be employed during the fire onergency to insure

that all people can find the SA location in anoke. Strobe

lighting, high/low placonent of lights, ncm confusing audible

frequencies can and should be used.

2. Facilitate life within the safe area:

a) Breathable air. Mure 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. Fortunately, both

can be acccii5)lished by pressurization. When the SA is designed

adjacait to the elevator shaft, pressurization of both the shaft

and the SA can be acocmplished together.

b) Acceptable temperature. The Panel concluded that a two hour

fire rating is appropriate for the SA in most cases. I agree.

Ihis length of exposure to possible hi^ toi^Deratures however

raises a question concerning SA environmental tonperature rise

if standard, steel fire doors are used. High unexposed surfax^e

Deceiriber 30, 1979

ref: Conference on Fire

Dr. Bernard Levin

IMited States Department

of Ccmnerce

Safety for the

Handicapped, November 26 - 29, 1979.

57
teni^^eratiires of these standard doors can subject occupants to

unbearable heat oonditicms as well as to secondary ignition

within the SA. Toi^jeratures as high as 500r F have been

measured depending on content and proximity of heat source

relative to ejqposed side.

3. Encourage safe area development through building design econcmies.

a) Ibe SA cannot be an unutilized island at times other than

emergencies. The floor space incorporated within the SA must

be available for everyday productive use, not just during

eneig^cies. With current costs/demands for floor space \^hat

they are, dead, unproductive floor space cannot be tolerated.

The SA must be totally integrated 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 otherwise attractive interior design. It should be consistent with

current trends for open i^ace 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 conc^ts. Essentially, using

the flexible fire barrier concept, the SA does not exist until

anergency does.

Many of these itons appear to argue against the reasonable use of safe

areas or refuge areas. In the past this may have been the case. Very

recQitly 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.

Member of the Board, National

Task Force on Life Safety

and the Handicapped.

CLNrsgo

58
International Conference of Building Officials

5360 SOUTH WORKMAN MILL ROAD • WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601 • (213) 699-0541

OFFICES OF THE

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JAMES E. BIHR, P.E. TECHNICAL DIRECTOR DONALD R. WATSON, P.E. BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT JOHNC.CANESTRO

CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT WILLIAM F.FUREY, P.E. SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING

RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

PRESIDENT HERBERT W. MEYER CODE CONSULTANT December 21, 1979

TREASURER JOHN E. MAULDINQ, P.E. SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILDING LANCASTER, CALIFORNIA

IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT JOHN J. MCKINNON, P.E. BUILDING AND SAFETY

DIRECTOR TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA

Doctor Bernard M. Levin

Design Concepts Research

Room A363, Building 224

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

JACKS. ATKINS. P.E. BUILDING OFFICIAL

PLACERVILLE, CALIFORNIA JOHN E. BOSS

BUILDING OFFICIAL COUNTY OF LANE

EUGENE, OREGON

CHARLES L.QILLETT CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE

LITTLETON. COLORADO

DONALD T. MacRAE, P.E. STATE BUILDING COMMISIONER

STATE OF INDIANA

ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING COUNCIL

INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

LESTER E. PAIGE, JR. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR/

BUILDING OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORT VIADRTH, TEXAS DAVE SCOTT, P.E. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING SAFETY

TEMPE, ARIZONA CHARLES G. SEALE. AIA SUPERINTENDENT OF

CODES ADMINISTRATION

LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

CHARLES W. VOLZ, AIA CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

H.T.WIEDENMAN, P.E. DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING DES MOINES, IOWA EDWARD F. WINTER. P.E. BUILDING OFFICIAL CEDAR RAPIDS. IOWA

Dear Dr. Levin;

As a member of the panel on Refuge, 1 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 requirement. For example, if a dining establishment has a mezzanine

level that can be reached by elevator and the menu is

JACKV. WINTER

BUILDING OFFICIAL COUNTY OF TEHAMA

RED BLUFF, CALIFORNIA 59

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
r

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, I see no reason to provide safe egress

or areas of refuge for the handicapped from all levels.

There are many other similar examples which would justify

not providing egress for the handicapped. I 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,

LCoJbo^>

D. R. Watson, P.E.

Technical Director

DRW:jg
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 individuals required for personal protection and performing specific fire-related life safety functions m buildings."

The panel listed critical points related to self-protection to be considered in the deliberations:

1. Establishment of emergency action

plans;

7. Definition of handicapped individuals consisting of physical, sen5ory, 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 firerelated 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 problem. 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 problems 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 approach 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 department and emergency medical

services using neighbors, telephone devices for the deaf

(TTY), telephone, tapes and/or

automated devices, preprogrammed telephones, Portatels, etc.

e. Improved design and maintenance of alarm systems;

hardware 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.

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 disabled persons in general for

dissemination to the general

public.

f. Educational materials could

be developed and disseminated relative to fire-safety

provisions for disabled per- sons in the various types of

occupancies. These materials

would be disseminated to designers, managers/supervisors, and occupants.

Problem 3 - Limitations of Persons

Solution 3a. Could design, develop, market and disseminate information relative to notification

systems, buildings, training

and self -protection products.

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

b. Education and training programs could be developed and

disseminated relative to attitudes toward handicapped and

attitude of disabled persons.

Programs could include information on related laws (such

as P.L.9^-142 (Education for

All Handicapped Children

Act) and Section 50^ of P.L.

93-112 (Rehabilitation Act of

1973).

Problem 4 - Limitations of Buildings

Solution 4a. Educational materials developed in solutions (2) and (5)

could be disseminated to building design professionals.

b. Programmatic development

of codes could improve

buildings and remove limitations.

c. Different strategies for improvement could be required

62
for existing or new buildings. Cost

d. Improvements could be part of

retrofit, renovation, or re- modeling projects.

e. Egress considerati6ns could be

incorporated as an essential

aspect of access (possible

interpretation relative to Sec.50^).

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

Short Term - (to 3uly 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 incorporate survey and self-survey guides.

2. Task Force on Life Safety and the

Handicapped should develop a catalogue of products for self-protection and ott><^r fir^-felated situa-

.1. 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

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 selfsupport? (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

3anuary 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 p>ersons by July 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

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. 504).

b. Building design systems

identified in Building

Design Workshop should

be utilized.

c. The Sec. 504 definition

of access should include

egress considerations.

program model which effectively

conveys fire/life safety building

design information about handicapped 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)

: The Task Force should establish consensus performance criteria for

product development relative to the following:

a. Notification <;ystem

4. Incorporate and coordinate

information about handicapped individuals in fire-related situations with other

educational programs and

laws, (PL93-112, Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Sec. 504).

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 experience of handicapped per- sons in fire related situations.

Should include the type of

disabilities, and medication

where possible.

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.

64
Table 1 MATRIX OF PROBLEMS & OCCUPANCIES

WEIGHTED BY SEVERITY IN OCCUPANCY

0>O

0}o ni

CO ’5

k_ .2 >

COc

COc

_o c C ^ 0) ‘M

0) Q.

CD ^

E

Eo

0)o

HMtoD

TJ

.y E

Z Si D <2

D

to

CO

CD3

T3 OC CO cc S o o

C Q. <

w LU 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

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 1.8 1.8 2.0 1.2 0.8

d. Emergency Procedures 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.0 1.8 0.2 0.2

e. Fire Protection Systems 0.8 1.8 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 0 1.8 0 0.8

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

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

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

SC A I E 0 3

65
PANEL ON SELF-PROTECTION

CHAIRMAN

3ohn Bryan

University of Maryland

Dept, of Fire Protection Engineering ^ College Park, Maryland 20742

301-454-2424

VICE CHAIRMAN

Clarence Nicodemus

Dept, of Rehabilitation

830 K Street Mail

Sacramento, California 95814

9I6-322-07I6

RECORDER

Norman Groner

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

30I-92I-3I75

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

Randolph E. Kirby

Alexandria Fire Marshal's Office

319 Prince Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

703-750-6654

Richard Klinker

General Services Administration

I8th & 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 013A

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514

919-966-1269

George Dolim, AIA

Hertzka & Knowles, Architects

1005 Sansome Street

San Francisco, California 94111 415-781-7121

Zaven Khachaturian, Ph.D.

National Institute on Aging

Building 31 National Institutes o* Health

Bethesda, Marvlanri

301-496-103^

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 implementing 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 ^)code

management and change; and 5) the e'+ablishment

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 ail segments

of society carries the assumption of rrk 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

(t 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 alternate routes (horizontal or vertical

evacuation)

3. the appointment of floor wardens

for building compartments or departments based on size and use, to monitor safety conditions and direct

exercises

4. 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;

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 information 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)

4. the encouragement of promulgators

of building codes to include requirements for fire emergency plans

i. 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

4. reduced liability for occupant safety

and risk

5. ability to attract certain tenants

6. good public relations and advertisement

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 considerable 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

he 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

plans

evacuation

k. special occupancy aids

5. safe practices (e.g., " No Smoking"

regulations, proper chemical handling, open flames,

exits).

unobstructed

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 programs for furnishings, hazardous

areas, etc. (self inspection, inspection by local fire services, by

volunteer "watchdog" groups, etc.)

k. 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:

l. 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

k. 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

k. 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 strategic*; for mproving 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 tneeting

fire safety objectives.

3. use of emergency services

personnel as consultants on design

and improving buildings

k. 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 re- late 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:

l. improved safety of occupants

2. reduced insurance premiums for

implementation of a total riskmanagement plan.

3. linking receipt of federal and state funds (rent subsidies, HUD grants,

etc.) on periodic review and

approval of safety standards

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

k. 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

17. 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.

3.4. 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)

4. 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.

4.

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 management 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 =’nd 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 an<! Evacuation Plans.)

3. Reassess priorities of programs

after cost analysis is completed.

4. Study implications of building

occupancy and size to fire safety for

handicapped persons.

5. Identify and contact special groups

that would be instrumental in implementing the recommendations.

6. Establish group of experts (such as FEMA, NFPA, USFA, lAFC,

HEW/RSA, A&TBCB, etc.) to determine 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 handicapped. 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 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 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 developmental disabilities group (contact;

Doris Harr) has done some work in the area of the 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 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 ot disaster

contingency plans.

The DCPA contract to the lAFC follows

President Carter's recent reorganization plan

establishing the new Federal Emergency Management 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 department will provide the first response and assistance. 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 contingency 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-

3420

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

74074. Phone: 405-624-5723. 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 74074. Phone: 405-

624-5723.

Articles from Fire Control Digest reprinted

with permission of the publisher.

74
Figure 1. MANAGERIAL ASPECTS OF FIRE SAFETY FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Handicapped

Individuals

•

Involvement

Handicapped

Organizations

Facility

Management

Local

Government

State

Government

Federal

Government

SOI-

>> m m

o

m

S

m

Z

OPERATION

FIELDS

• • Age • • • • Fitness; Impairment ^ ^

• Resident or Transient H ^ • • Activities < ^ • • • • • • Education; Information d q

• • • Risk Consciousness O

• • Evacuation Plan o n • • Emergency Personnel [[j q • • Evacuation Exercises + m p; • • Special Assistance ^ ? • • Volunteers ^ y. • • • • • • Self-defense m z • • • House Safety Regulations

• • •

Furnishings, Appliances

^

and Equipment • • Fire Load x m J o

• • Reaction to Fire ^ j!|:j z

^ • Housekeeping & Maintenance x m • • • Clearance of Exit Ways ^ ^

• • Storage Systems ^ ^

•

•

•

• •

Special Guidelines for ^

r~ Compartmentation

Fire Resistance of ”

Structural Elements p

Fire Reaction of o

Design- Materials and Finishes z

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 <5c Florida Avenue, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

RECORDER

Jennifer Gagnon

Center for Fire Research

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Mr. A. vanBogaert

Director General

Ministerie van Nationale

Opvoeding en Cultuur

B-1040 Brussels

J de Lalaingstraat 28

Belgium

Alex R. Cunningham

Director, California Office of

Emergency Services

Post Office Box 9577

Sacramento, CA 95823

916-421-4990 Ext. 201

Harold A. Reitan

Architectural & Transportation Barriers

Compliance Board

Room 1113 330 C Street, S.W.

Washington, DC 20201

William J. Tomes

Assistant Fire Marshal

San Diego Fire Department

1222 First Avenue

San Diego, California 92101

714-236-6495

Marc Waller

Psychology Department

Davie Hall 013A

Chapel Hill, NC 27514

919-966-1269

Robert Wehrli

Department of Housing & Urban

Development

7th <5c D Streets, S.W.

Washington, DC 20410

202-755-7366

Arnold Gangnes, AIA

620 Vance Building

Seattle, WA 98101

206-624-7515

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

702-389-5177

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 ^rvices 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 handicapped 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, considering 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 Department; and "rescue" means that the Fire Department 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 independent 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.

o Numerous security problems can arise

from marking the home of a disabled

person; thieves have, in the past, found

such homes easy targets.

o 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 identification 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 identification 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 3. person.

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 minimized 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.

4. 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.

4.

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 department 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 department 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 segments. 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

pKjpulation 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 department.

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 system 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
person or on the phone. Even the able-bodied can encounter difficulties here because of

language barriers. Some fire departments 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 performance 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 disabled 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 subsequent 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 rehabilitation 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 consideration 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.

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.

4. Pre-fire planning should be undertaken 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

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 educated to recognize the risks the

disabled are exposed to, and means

of assisting the disabled in the fire

situation.

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 department.

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.

14. 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 documents 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 ^80-35. November 1978.

3. Health Care Emergency Preparedness. NFPA

Manual 3M. Boston, National Fire Protection

Association, 1975.

4. International Conference on Firesafety in High-Rise 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, Technic^ Hazards

1725 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20472

202-653-7860

VICE CHAIRMAN

Joseph Redden

Director, Public Protection Division

National Fire Protection Association

470 Atlantic Avenue

Boston, MA 02210

617-482-8755

RECORDER

Gretchen G. Bank

Project Manager

AIA Research Corporation

1735 New York Avenue, N.W.

Washingotn, DC 20006

202-785-7834

Howard D. Boyd

Consultant

4018 Lealand Lane

Nashville, TN 37204

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 20420

202-389-2107

Howard Teich

Law Offices of Stutman and Rothberg

150 E. 58th Street

New York, NY 10022

2l2-421-'*040

George Gray, FAIA

Rutherford Road

West Sand Lake, NV 12196

518-674-3482

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 22204

Rexford Wilson, President

Firepro, Inc. Post Office Box 145

Wellesley Hills, MA 02181

617-237-1153

John Brenner

Director of Safety & Security

Peninsula General Hospital

100 E. Carroll Street

Salisbury, MD 21801

301-546 6400

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

84
CLARENCE L. NIOCDEUUS

Rehabilitation Engineering Consultant

625 Doyle Lane

Dixon, California 95620

(916) 678-3661

Decetnber 30, 1979

ref: Conference on Fire

Dr. Bernard Levin

United States Department

of Conmerce

Safety for the

Handicapped, Noveaber 26 - 29. 1979.

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Dear Dr. Levin:

Below are ny conaents on the report of the PANEL CN EMERGENCY SERVICE

ACTICNS.

I find the rqport generally excellent. New ideas and directions for

efforts in my professional area of Rehabilitation Engineering are

suggested and appreciated. 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 oin: inadequate and conflicting building codes, inadequate buildings and alarm systems, etc. However, efforts must be

consciously redoubled to iB5)rove the building enviroianent so that

’’rescue” is not necessarily required but is the exertion. 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. ”Rescue” would then

occur only wiien these efforts breakdown, are ill conceived or

insufficient to match the onergency.

I guess wiiat I am trying to say is this:

1. A person vfeo is disabled can do a great deal to help him/herself

in an emergency, if the means is available.

2. It appears to be an ineffecient use of anergency service manpower

to plan to ’’rescue” all the disabled people in a given situation,

especially wben they can, in most cases, help thanselves.

3. Focus the ’’rescue” efforts on those are totally incapacitated

through injury or other trauma during the emergency. Those wbo are

sli^tly injured will be much more able to help themselves through

building design consideration that provided for the so called

’’handicapped” people.

In other words, when the building fire emergency needs of this supposed

’’snail group of disabled people” are met, the needs of many others of

us ’’ablebodied” people will also be met. This includes the rescuer who

becomes disoriented in the anoke environment, but locates an exit

85
because of the strobing li^ts placed there to aid visually and

hearing impaired persons.

It a^jears to me that the people involved in this Panel were predaninately realists, as reflected in the draft, and rightly so. I urge the thought of in5flx>ven)ent of things beyond the mere hope of

just a successful ’’rescue" however.

Member of the Board, National

Ta^ Force on Life Safety

and the Handicapped.

dN:^o

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 13-1^ 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 handicapped?

II. 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?

III. 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 handicapped.

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 handicapped 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 individuals 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 iiglit 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.

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 individuals 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

88
r

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

I their particular disabilities and the

safety measures of the buildings they

use.

' Current practices do not provide

I handicapped individuals with a means

of obtaining assistance during an emergency.

li Movement Problems;

il *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

I conditions or elements which are not

I currently addressed in relevant code

provisions and include floor

coverings, grates, mats, hardware,

i illumination, sills, protruding objects,

I and level changes.

I *2. The length of time that it takes a

I handicapped individual to move away

*1 from a threatening situation can be seen as a function of their particular

i disability. No current code provisions

take into account this type of time

and distance information on handicapped persons.

3. Handicapped individuals are often

incapable of using conventional exit

systems. The use of stairs as emerI gency exits in multi-story buildings

I does not satisfy the exit needs of

individuals with certain handicaps.

4. Traditional elevator standards prej elude the use of elevators by either

j the handicapped or the able-bodied in

1 emergencies.

5. Certain configurations and sizes of

corridors can create exit problems

! for handicapped individuals. This is also a problem area for the able-

' bodied; 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.

ij 6. The size of door openings and opening

j factors such as hardware can create

I

I

I

exit problems for handicapped individuals.

Protection problems;

1.

The disabilities of certain handicapped 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 techniques (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 ablebodied 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 must be developed

to fulfill all requirements for acceptable egress.

2. Codes and standards should be

cost-sensitive and should not

impose 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.

if. 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, management 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

J. Armand Burgun, AIA

Rogers, Butler, Burgun and Shahine

521 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Howard D. Boyd

Consultant and Past President

Fire Marshals Association of North America

4018 Lealand Lane

Nashville, TN 37204

Paul Staudt, Jr., R.A.

Assistant Chief

Bureau of Construction Code Enforcement

State of New Jersey

363 West State Street

Post Office Box 2768

Trenton, NJ 08625

Bruce Trant, P.E. Executive Director

Council of American Building

Officials

560 Georgetown Building

2233 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20007

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 20234

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
rr £300:-- T.-Ac,

' * .1*

V ^A.r r

-*._• t J.5 «ifc.rS '*

h'i y U- •'•.'>Ti'fiNOTES

•./,Bf*?!f

^piinrr;«j13) f

’

/ » c'^VOp

''inA

I' ^ 'T«b.'

I >»iT

': *n I •UAiaHt» iNK,ii' v-*t i«r^ • ‘ ry^' •-* f'.^-w ' >

'-

.

* *' ' P»jPlJLIl'J

i l 4tO* -‘ C*\

'•c

ol

^•1 I-

- /c i .V-9 thfuUJ .•> j Si Af

A, pTrtVf '**«

_«(; 0»J -vcp#* * i|U« ,imS0KX

. •‘'rC. i<H^ VJI HW

'.f' iff*. rr.yjni

„ f.- » {%.

«M k*tM

«n^. ,4 A*

‘

.. ^

n»pst

r, l^vV-icdl

4,'trt other

»y iVt( ‘1' '-

'Tt4' * I ' -

:.«f.-<rr .,, •*

.

' •

> y •iT/' ..

. > -i

V. ^ 0

.- '

' * «» t hy;

TW

r,oi'4:/ifl'«biiil>« To attrtiHiJtl .Wil WioY'

fliWti ’yj drii

AiA ^i||iu8 bf •

' .A .C iKih fujjjftoQ 5 Jiofl '?>ur»vA YixlPI IS? SIOCJ V/ .-.loY Vi

; b ittd .a>i-v

Tzc- 5 bni> ..n^

^vM \f> aoiH. yoesiAfjA^*^''

an' J hhsU^'

•.>4

).'* O ,0 final

»Mi^n3 /!»'>> J-JiJ70V?

ovi'i 1 [Uon>t * v*jdD

“

'kL^

'"•i 4* .'i-irO jjij

(Lsl! 5^i *cc- , -SDUtO h'o<l

'

•

: ,/.

' V ,«!nl

" :'t'" "rfg^t- - '.'.i'. /'I A

. 0 .' v:or^TT]

.... x^nirti'i'Ji.

'. {

•:•

«htjsl>rtsiJ'* te i. list id if.-’.oiXftH

d^t' Oi XI

Ai^rwiteW

A(A ^’'VJffT.

!V|»:i -5 > bn*;. :;ni^;.fWH8n3

ir 'i*e*'i •" ii * '*' '*/ 'xtoH

i«o<l

92

'>W
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 handicapped 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 participants 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 "disaster," 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

III. Rescue

93
IV. Evacuation

V. Relocation

VL 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 presented 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.

4. 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.

Logistical problems increase in different ways (time, quantity, distance, 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

of time, money, and human and physical resources, these are the problem areas that should

be concentrated on first.

2. Problem Areas

2.1 General

*1. There is a general lack

of appreciation of the

need for specific consideration of the handicapped within emergency preparedness

planning.

*2. There exists a lack of consumer input (handicapped 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., handicapped 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 individuals, 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
clarity and consistency within any

given plan. Clarity

and consistency

must be emphasized

in efforts to introduce provisions related to the handicapped.

*6. There is

a need for an adequate data

base on the re- actions of handicapped individuals

during emergencies.

*7. There is, at present, no method of demonstrating the

effectiveness or the

cost benefit of handicapp>ed provisions

within emergency

preparedness plans.

*8. 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.)

*9. Handicapped individuals should be included in any practice, rehearsal or exercise of emergency procedures.

10. There existsa general lack of

credibility in the

emergency preparedness planning

process. Greater

credibility must be

established if handicapped provisions in existing plans are to be effective. To in- crease credibility

the participation

and support of the

handicapped population must be en- couraged.

11. Evaluation techniques should be developed to judge

the effectiveness

and workability of

handicapped provisions within emergency preparedness

plans.

12. There is

a lack of

proper incentives

to promote the incorporation of handicapped provisions

within local emergency preparedness

plans.

13. There is no effective transfer

mechanism for

moving information

through various

levels of government (federalstate-local).

14. The abilities and

talents of individuals with various

handicaps need to be recognized and

utilized during

emergencies (e.g.,

communication networks already in existence within

specific handicapped groups,

through CB radios

and TTYs, etc.).

15. 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 distinguish 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 individuals within a community. *2. At present, emergency preparedness

planners do not

have adequate information on the

particular needs of

individuals with

different types of

disabilities.

3. There is little a- wareness of the

special transportation needs of individuals 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.).

4. There is

a need for

development of

methods for identifying segments of

cities and communities with high

occupancy by handicapped individuals.

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 isa lack of

immediate warning

identification. Warnings and alarms

could also give handicapped individuals some idea of what direction they should

take and what actions are required.

3. There isa lack of

methods for verifying warnings; this

may be of greater

importance to handicapped individuals than to people with greater ease of mobility.

4. There is lack of un- derstanding of the

ramifications and

appropriateness of

the time factors

involved in adequately warning handicapped 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 dependence of an individual 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.

2.4. Rescue

*1. More information

needs to be disseminated on training in special techniques for rescuing

individuals with

certain handicaps.

2. There isa lack of

knowledge on ways

in which the handicapped individual can participate in his/her own rescue.

3. There may be

a need to develop information and

guidelines stressing

the need to rescue handicapped individuals first, depending on the emergency, the degree

of risk, and time

elements. Should

handicapped individuals 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?

with certain handicaps.

*2. There is

a lack of

understanding of

the time needs of

handicapped individuals for preparation for evacuation

and actual

evacuation.

*3. There is

a need to further identify

and define alternative procedures for

the evacuation of

handicapped individuals (e.g., buddy

systemplanned and

spontaneous).

*4. There is

a lack of

understanding of

the types of assistance 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 individuals 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

2.5. Evacation information on the care and needs of

*1. There is

a lack of handicapped indivitransportation sys- duals within

terns specifically relocation centers,

linked to the movement of individuals

97
3. There is a need to investigate how the

evacuation of handicapped individuals relates to various types of

non-governnnental

relocation efforts

such as relocation

by organization

(e.g., work place,

company, and

social- based organizations). The

ways in which handicapped assocations and service

organizations aid in this process should

also be investigated.

2.7. Emergence

*1. People with different types of

handicaps may

have different time

frames for re- turning to their

communities. This

should be investigated further and

incorporated in emergency plans.

* 2 . The kinds of support systems

needed by the handicapped in anticipation of recovery

should be investigated.

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 Handi»'^pped Provisions and Other Efforts

During the workshop several relevant

efforts were identified. These include current

plans that incorporate provisions for the handicapped and other efforts to address the needs of

different handicapped populations in emergencv

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.

4. Recommendations

1. Steps should be taken to influence policy decisions and

legislation to deal with the handicapped 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 incentives be developed to promote 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.

4. 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 development of some type of vehicle(s)

for delivering needs and solutions related to emergency preparedness planning for the handicapped to local governments.

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

z

O

< ?

a

z UJ

1-<

*

£t: UJ

CC z

^ <

'Z,

1 1

z

cc

=)o

3

O

<

h-

_j

UJ

UJ _j Q < UJ > X O CL 5 cr UJ CO

C/3 (A \ > \ C \ C “D \ 0) O V) X 1- <D 0) X Q> Q. O X c 0) O X c- k- fc- X UJ Q. Q.

Level of

Organization

Existing

Methodology

and

Resources

Actions Needed

and

Potential

Resources

1

Exist. Act.

Need

d

UJ

FACILITY** A

B A

B ETC.

COMMUNITY A

B A

B

Bl

ETC.

REGION A

B

Bl

STATE A

B

Bl

FEDERAL A

B

‘ Emergency Preparedness Process continues with Emergency and Recovery,

i.e., individual residences, institutions, business occupancies, etc.

Variable Level A:

Variable Level B;

VariaPIr Lev<^I B -j

Type of handicap (i.e., multiple, motor, visual, hearing, etc.)

'''ype of emergency/disaster (i.e., fire, flood, earthquake,

nuclear, hazardous material, terrorism, etc.) Brel® nf emergency/disaster (i.e., intensity, time, distance, etc.)

100
Format 2. Charts for each level of organization (Facility, Community, Regional,

State, Federal). For example;

o

\ > t \l- UJ Type \ FIRE

of Handicap

1 VISUAL 2

3

EARTHOUAKE

12

3

FLOOD NUCLEAR EXTREME

WINDS

ETC.

1 HEARING 2

3

MOTOR

1 MENTAL

ETC.

1 . Pre-Emergency Planning (including education, prevention, training, responsibility)

2. Warning

3. Response

F: >-mat } Time Factors/General Functional Requirements

Time Factors PRE TRANS POST

General Functional Identification Warning Emergence

Requirements Rescue Recovery

Relocation

Evacuation

'01
PARTICIPANTS - EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLANNING WORKSHOP

Edwina Juillet (Chairperson)

Waynesboro Community Hospital

501 Oak Avenue

Waynesboro, VA 22980

Jan Bishop

Regional Health Planning Council

8 Park Place

Newark, NJ 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 FI. 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 j

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:

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 basic concepts needed in building

design for the safety of the handicapped are much the same as those for

103

The problems considered by this panel were those of people having difficulty
r

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 handicapped 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 p>ersonal 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 information 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

i

i‘

L.
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 individual'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 investigated 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:

4. 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

'05
from recognizing the threat.

6. There exists a need to relate the

building design to the actual needs

of the handicapp>ed 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 department 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 handicapped 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 eff‘*'~tive, 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 individuals 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 equipment, 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 information on equipment and devices in terms of values which can be

measured with regard to the

abilities or inabilities of handicapped 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 handicapped individual.

The ultimate goal is to broaden designers'

understanding of user needs for buildings. Specifically, there is a need to train and inform

106
designers on the handicapped and their needs in buildings; designers must understand that the

handicapped, while needing design attention, are just one of the many types of people who

use buildings. Ideally, design for the handicapped 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. John L. Bryan

Professor and Chairman of Fire Protection

Engineering

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

J. Armand Burgun, AIA

Rogers, Burgun, Shahine, and Deschler,

Architects

521 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10017

David Hammerman

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 20405

John Klote

Building 224, Room A36 3 National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Robert Lynch, AIA

440 Pleasant Street

Malden, 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 0210*)

Rexford Wilson

Firepro, Inc. Post Office Box 145

""ell^sley Hills, ‘vlA 07IJ)|

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 4: 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 handicapped, 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

Lire safety education program for the

hearing-impaired in high schools;

• Chicago (Illinois) Fire Department's Fire

Education Bureau's work within its Neighborhood Awareness Program;

• Las Vegas (Nevada) Fire Department, Fire

Education Bureau's work with the hearingimpaired, 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 "Servir^c 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 ablebodied 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

1.09
of fire safety materials for the

handicapped differ from the content developed for non-handicapped 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, brochure) 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 demonstrations?

4. What organizations, agencies or persons would support the development 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 handicapp>ed other than the handicapped?

2. Content

The same kinds of precaution and safety

mecisures 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 individuals register with their local fire departments.

Two other elements that would be most stressed

in education for the handicapp>ed are practice

(of self-defense strategies, escape, etc.) and

maintenance (of viable escape plans for different

types of emergency .ituations, 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 participants' 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 handicapped 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 personnel 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 be 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 personnel, teachers, etc.) in fire safety for the

handicapped;

• Vulnerability of the hearing-impaired.

*^ear 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 individuals 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 hearingimpaired 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 literature 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 inconvenience 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-handicapped participants visual education. Educators

should try to emphasize the tactile in teaching

111
fire safety.

4. 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 handicapped 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 include:

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 developed 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 anr' special education organizations.

• A clearinghouse system which

could be estabished at libraries

servicing handicapped individuals.

• Programs on fire safety for the

d^af vith '-ia'jals 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 dissemination? 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 individuals with low incomes.

• Other avenues within the federal, state,

municipal governments.

• Municipal bonds. The State of California

has a Redevelopment Plan which allocates 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 (Department 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 problems 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 environments. 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 systems. 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.

COndusiofis

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

113
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.

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 dissemination agenda.

4. 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 development are so new that people are not aware of others working in the same area.

although there must be efforts to raise

the awareness of the general public.

6. Resource materials need to be developed. 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.

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,

I 14
FIGURE 1. WHAT YOU CAN DO — Preparation for and in a Fire Emergency

1 115
Type

of

Handicap

FIGURE 1. WHAT YOU CAN DO (cont'd)

<

D

>

O

ocO

ocQ

Q.O

hCO

" £ QJ O

^4- c ro (U o

ro +-> O

M

O

c ^T3 n

^

-2 ^

D T3

(n Co <U p

E 1o

CU <0 <T3 2 15 E

COD . E ^

« aj E .t: fe E < OJ

</) C

QJ= S o Si

E .E

L.as -o

asc .E. P TJ

i2 TM

X <rt 0) p

(U (U (5 s" X ^

T3c

CO> "

C 4- 5 « 3

OJ ^ =

</> CO 'S -S2 .<2 0) c 5 E C o i- « -2 —

^ ^ CO

O

c

--» D O) ^ C

E

Js Io CO CO

(O ^ ^ >

--> —

c CO

.9? o u ^

o

Z

QC<

E

T3 S

C (/) 0}

(O >J3

c o

l5 o ^

15 o Q)

0) <M <0 w 0) > ^ *-M 16 ^ ^ O tJ to X CO c E -c — CO +-•

XJ C

C CO

CO ^

P

2 E

O 0)

•o

0)N

E S

“O

> _Q)

c/T

O) CO — >

0) >

"O^ O

O CO

</> E .i

. . >

-2 O’

>ra5 o o

E

T3 O

CD CO ^.£

0> ^ E o o •M O O 0)

(V

^ cJ

0) d)

“O

0) OCOE

0> > CO crt

c 5

;;- s s-CO o

ULl >

O

0) =

> -C o

S *4 >_ O 4- T)

4^ 4-' CO

' 2 >- « o '5

Si ^ j:

v> % — ro « <u

OJ QJ o -c X §- g

<u o O 4. O

E=^ g •"•DO

CD C =

^ CO CO C E O

^ o

0)Q.

CO2

0>O4-» 0)E

CO

CO —

E

CO CO

0)

CO O)c

c

CO “O

CO "D

-Mo > U

-C -D

j2 }5 ^ E

c

CO

CD ^ -C C o

<0 <D "O CD TM -i

0) jC

COD

O)c

£05

Q.

d)

CD ^ C C/5 ini S ;p D

QJ ^

^ <->

cu

CDE

vt

CD ^

(U X

j2 •”

‘to ^

> > CD CD X X

c ^ CD 0,0

o

>• > — 4-* CO >

TM O o C g-

-L CO ^

o2

^ S-2-S

E "2 Q> ^ « S

o JS 2 X '<5 s’ Q- o 2 •-

CO to

d) O

d)o

E

c ^ CD .E CD •- co 4-» O

n

CO

CO ow. o

E E

JZ

O)

CDO

^3CO >k-d)> oCO

d)

kCO

(0

’d>c

•M

’>

CO

’>

u.O

CD >

CO

(D D

k_d)

CD

k. c I CO <0 4- CO

C7) c

3

Q.

CO

Ulo

>

LUQ

(J

QC<

0) -a ^ a ro °

O -D E

U c - Crt S 2 E T3 f4. c Crt ^ C cn

</) "O CU ^ O

’G § 5 C ^ m 3 JP cu $ ^ CD CD *0

16
FIGURE 2. PREVENTION

“Oc

CO DCDa

Q.

COo

c

CO -C

d>o

c

0) 5

4—co

o

<1> c

CD >

D

O

>

c

*r </) o ^

.2 Q>

-C S - •E’-g

a> t:

is ro TM (U

a U) <f> .S2 cn 0} 0) ~ 0) -c ^ 0

4-' !-> 4J .E TO •- <5 J3 ^

CL TM fc -C o

H-

<U ^QQ

03

</>

ra "g 1 §:

S2 03 <U <J Q.^

2 S

T3 -E TM o s>i

03

c > o

•t; — 03 XJ 3

05 .t; i_ «

3 O) o c >'c

•E 203

0) 03

o

03a

3o>

Oc

03 D

T3

033

O

>

>+-oQ

> —

it xs t TM

O w z '-B

CM

D03 X3

03 X3

4- Q O

U- c

=o

E

CJ3 c

l3<: . k-03 03 C d ^ . 2 £

-D O-g

ZiL 7\ 1-

</) -C • “ CO w CO o .E o E £

o c c ^ Q. o • • • • •

!I7

*Closing

doors

at

night

is

the

standard

reinforced

message

in

fire

education,

but

it

was

noted

at

the

workshop

that

if

smoke

detectors

are

not

installed

in

every

bedroom,

it

is

safer

to

keep

bedroom

doors

open

so

that

the

hall

smoke

detector

is

clearly

audible.

Also,

if

the

bedroom

door

is

closed,

there

is

no

detector

in

the

bedroom,

and

a

fire

starts

in

the

room,

the

occupant

may

die

of

smoke

inhalation

before

the

alarm

goes

off.
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

2400 M Street, N.W., - Room 604

Washington, DC 20472

Richard Champion

U.S. Office of Education

Bureau of Education for the Handicapped

(USOE/BEH)

400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.

Washington, DC 20202

Robert Dantona

USOE/BEH

Donahoe Building 4046

400 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. 224

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D.C. 20234

Fred Jameson

Fire Education Officer

Las Vegas Fire Department

400 East Stewart Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Janiece Peterson

Special Education Teacher

John Tyler Elementary School

10th & G Streets, S.E. 'V„-hington, DC 70003

C^bbe Hagnei

Student, National Technical Instituto

for the Deaf

Rochester Institute of Fechnf'iopv

30 Lowenthal Road

Box 2342

Rochester, NY 14673

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 Consumer 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 handicapped 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

vith regard to education and training, both

their own and that of the perso'^nel 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.

k. Some balance between safety/risk

and building costs must be reached.

What is required is an objective

analysis of marginal costs for providing safety features for the handicapped, 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

among 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

handicapp>ed under ordinary circumstances (assistance-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 handicapp>ed 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;

k. 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;

l. That handicapped individuals are, in fact, more vulnerable than the ablebodied 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.
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 incorporated 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

^hat 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

compartnpentation: 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 systems 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 residential 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 auraJ and visual problems. In fact,

the majority of those individuals at present who

are described as handicapped or disabled are over

65. Therefore, the 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?

k. 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 minimums 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 codemaking 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 handicapped very complicated. Hence, the desire

among the participants to be involved bv representation 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 handicapp>ed would be treated on a

national level. Redundantly cued alarm systems,

smoke detectors with extra features su' h 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).

k. Use of existing research results on

fire-resistive materials for the

clothing and furnishings of the handicapped.

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 Saf^ety"

• The Paraplegic News

122
• Council of Senior Citizens, Washington,

D.C.

• Las Vegas Fire Department, 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

123
PARTICIPANTS -CONSUMER INTERESTS WORKSHOP

Ronald L. Mace, AIA, Chairman

Barrier Free Environments, Inc. Post Office Box 30634

Raleigh, NC 27612

Tom Fields

National Park Service

5600 Columbia Pike

Falls Church, VA

or 9324 Cherry Hill Road

Apartment 2 College Park, MD 20740

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 48109

Charles Sabatier

Paralyzed Veterans of America

4330 East West Highway , Suite 300

Washington, DC 20014

Frank Bourgin

Federal Emergency Management Agency

1111 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 Standaids

Washington, DC 2^234

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

12 ^
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 development of a program to provide fire safe environments 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;

4. To identity the voids that should be

filled before the >

’ oblen areas can

be solved;

5. To synthesize the problem areas,

existing knowledge ar.d knowledge

ganv

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 problem areas. The final sections present the philosophy 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:

i25
• "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, batteryoperated telecommunicator for deaf,

hearing- and speech-impaired individuals.

• "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 participants concentrated on products—product development 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 apartments, 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.

•T • 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 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 participants 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 residentialmultiple 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
Action 3. Costs of placing the product or system

in Duildings. • in-place Movement

defense Manipulation 4. Product development and commercialVision

Mental

ization costs.

Life Support 5. Enforcement (including codes and stan- Size dards).

Strength

6. Practicality: is it really practical? • safe area Life Support

7. Maintainability/Reliability. • evacuation Movement

Manipulation

Hearing

8. Education/Training

Vision 9. Conflicting constraints: if you change

Mental a building element to accommodate

Life Support

Emotional

Size

Strength

10.

the handicapped, have you compromised

safety? Has an element designed to facilitate egress compromised access?

Political priorities (funding).

After Action

Accounting all disabilities 11. Technology: is the technology available?

12. Is "people" a product?

A great need in product development that was repeatedly brought out during the workshop was the need for education and training. Without

13. Interface of products with the personal

equipment of disabled people

education and training, the cleverest and most

14. Testing appropriate products and systems are useless.

13. Legality

4. Areas of Concern and Limitations

The following considerations were taken into 5. Philosophy

account in workshop discussion of occupancy and

building types. There may be other considera- The philosophy of the workshop participants

tions that should be added for future work. regarding an approach to product development

is outlined as follows:

1. Short-term vs. long-term residence. 1. Universal Design: all products must

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.

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 increased. This input should be

organized and representatives of

particular disability groups should

present a consensus of the requirements for fire safety products for

their group.

3. A specific survey should be developed 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 products on the market because

of 1) lack of technology, 2)

economics 3) lack of education

and training?

c. the focus could be on developing 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

\ >

\ c \ ro \

Q.o \ O Q. Life \ O >

Safety

Process

NOTIFICATION ^

• Of potential victim

Residential

—

Single

Residential

—

Multiple

+

Commercial

+

Office

+

Industrial

+

Public

Assembly

+

Institutional

+

Educational

• Of service for help / / + + + + + +

ACTION

* • In place defense - - - - / - + /

• Safe area n/a + + + + / + +

* • Evacuation / - / - / - + -

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

\

Type \ CO \ 0) Disability ^

Type \ /

1. Movement

Res—

M

Eoo

+

SM-O

+ +

Ind

1

..

+

Pub

+

Inst

+

Educ

2. Manipulation

3. Hearing + / / / / / / /

4. Vision + + + + + + + +

5. Voice

6. Mental

7. Life Support

8. Emotional

9. Hidden

10. Size

1 1 . Strength

(notations from Figure 1.)

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 95814

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 84104

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

132
AUGMENTATION OF THE REPORT BY THE PANEL ON SELF PROTECTION

Clarence L. Nlcodemus

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 falls to state clearly what that

plight Is and what the Indlvldu^ 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 problem In his own unique setting.

System Definition

Self-protection. In my view, bolls down

to a process of problem solving steps that a person takes which leads ultimately to improvement of his chances of survival In a building fire emergency. In the simplest

form, the process considers three aspects to

the entire system: the Individual; the

environment; and the Interface between the

two. Plctorlally, 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 develofmient 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 useftil 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:

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 and 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 .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 %rlth 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 spectrum of people In

any building fire emergency. Some may be

disabled prior to the emergency, others may

be effectively disabled by the emergency.

All must be considered In the design of this

principal Interface area.

Group/Bulldlng-Eardware Interface

(Figure 2, Area 3)

As mentioned earlier, the list of concerns for the single person-building Interaction 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 addressed 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, expeclally

since products for effective, total selfprotection 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.

J34
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 individual 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.

Indlvidual/Group/Buildlng 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 fall:

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 senarlos

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 capacillty.

Do not patronize (when possible) those

facilities (hotels, motels, stores, - 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. Nlcodemus

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 Califonrla State Department of Rehabilitation, with Its major

central office located In a renovated emd remodeled building at 830 "K"

Street Mall In Sacramento , e xperlenced 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

%dilch 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 bolls

do%m 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 lav. The

principal factor causing this frustration Is the lack of adequate egress systems.

Sections 301 through 504 of the 1973 and

1978 revised Rehabilitation Act mandate non- dlscrlmlnatory action by an employer on the

basis of disability 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

surpresslon 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 (l.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. Nlcodemus

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 con- ducted 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 envoived . 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 seeing-eye dogs and other

assistive devices required for

mobility,

* have minimum dollar Impact on implementation 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 non- ambulatory (except in the case of

the quadriplegic)

* Not rely on any external power sources for its junction.

These performance objectives are con- sidered 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

Objectives

Fxmctlonal Lack of System

Conslderat lone Ability to : Constraints

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 normal 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 archltectual . They can be

social, (l.e., language), economic (excess

costs) , perceptual (non-understood symbology) , sensorial (not able to be seen,

heard or felt) , attltudlnal (prejudice)

,

Informational (misrepresentation), etc.

Mobility Move or propel Safe area re- oneself horizon- fuge must be

tally or vertl- close by or cally. quickly transported In order

to meet a four

minute "rule of

thumb" smoke

environment

survival time

requirements

Manipulation Physically operate controls

of various

kinds

All controls

must be extremely simple

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,

tlons

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 nondlscrlmlnatory handicapping

archltectual 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 spectrum 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 disabilities and then to project constraints

which will hopefully mitigate any handicaps

that might evolve for those using the emergency egress system.

Sight Detect and

follow visual

alarms and

Instructions

Provide audible

and tactile

alarms and

Instrucltons

Perception Mentally understand controls

and Instructions (through

differing

languages lack

of education,

presence of

learning disabilities, presence of developmental disability

or loss of other

mental Integrative

capability)

Provide nonlanguage spe--- ciflc instruction and control directions,

use clearly

understandable

symbolic Instructions, use psychologically

appropriate

control Instructions

(In an 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

%d.th surroundings. In the case with the

former, they may not understand many of the more obvious Instructions.

Pregnant Vomem, 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 explored briefly above, the Project has

brought Into focus many of the primary concerns In developing a system which must

adequately funclton 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;

Inconslstant 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 removal 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 separatee 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 bulldlngvlde 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 stairwells,

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 con- structed 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 State 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 Plac^ent

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 entry 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 heneflclal

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, AO 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

Accesslble/Multlpass

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 aux- iliary 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 t£ a gravity

powered vertical egress assistance system

installation.

The concept is currently in the protot3rpe stage to test feasibility of its

operation in the existing stairwell.

7.3.2

Rail System

Very basically, the proposed system con- sists of a continuous rail beginning at the

upper floor landing area and terminating at

grade level. The rails serve as a track or 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 involved 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

140
of a total emergency egress system. Its

design and prototype model formed the subject 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

8.

Conclusion

Three major identifiable results have

been achieved within the K Street Mall Project;

8.1

Standardized Approach

A first model for a standardized design

for general building structures incorporating

emergency refuge areas and life safety

evacuation procedures has been developed.

8.2

Inplace System

Actual implementation of a fully

integrated and automatic, retrofitted

emergency egress system in a multistoried,

leased public agency building brought about

through cooperation of six public agencies

and private building ownership has been

accomplished

8.3

Protot3rpe 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

Much additional effort needs to be conducted as a result of the work described

above and as a matter of supplying an enormous amount of realistic design data for

use by those who may be (or should be) involved in this process in the immediate

future. This effort should be channeled

along the follo«d.ng 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 com- munications between safe areas and command

center outside building; perssurlzatlon and/

or fresh air flow into safe areas.

9.2 Testing

This project must confirm the functional

viability of the Implaced flexible fire

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 .

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 hlghrlse 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 Rehabllltalton; State of Calflornla - Financial support and total commitment^ Off ice

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 Information; National Task Free

on Life Safety and the Handicapped - en- couragement to persist.

141
RESEARCH ON SAFETY FOR 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, prevention 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 experience together draw the daily safety diagram of

a community.

2.2. The content

, in their turn, are relative to the

occupants' activities and to their mental and physical

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.

m
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.

[jiuyiiim 1 Co III po hti. t i of tfife SAFETY notion ; lo gical

^rowtfi ptuloivjphy of tire 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

1U3
I

compensated by

- their special education relativ'e 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 O 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.

m
Di- M 4A tv'. 9- /Cl

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO. NBSIR 80-1965

Z. No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Fire and Life Safety for the Handicapped:

Conference and Preparatory Workshop Reports

5. Publication Date February 1980

EDITOR

Bernard M. Levin

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON. DC 20234

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fStreer. City, st^te. ZIP)

Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Task Force on Life Safety and the Handicapped, AIA Research Corp., US Dep*t

of Health, Education, and Welfare, President's Comm, on Emplo

ment of Handicapped. Veterans Admin.. Nat. Fire Protec. Asso

13. Type of Report & Period Covered Final

14. %)Oi)sodne]^

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I

I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached. 16. ABSTRACT (A 200~word or leaa factual summary of moat significant information. If document includes a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here,)

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 rs ix to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name;

aep>arated by semicolons)

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 HUnlimited

I I For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

I I Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003- [^Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

UNCLASSIFIED

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

UNCLASSIFIED

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

153

22. Price

$ 8.00

145 USCOMM-DC
IBSSr

0(H

catli-o# jsi^

® M a- MBT

1:^’'

$ l *;L' t -i > . lac I^d-in# , p*t »ot\^l

sM^flVl!>-J*a ikxfa H0l^T3 »i»2 aUJt biwfc^aill^

5' «3 -1 f»»0« , ^odast'K'i/. ^ 1«|* 0 oat^9ln^"

tmal "^ajji ,/- ‘ J J J'- -. #^|«l''yT;,,Af«,ib%:. hur.dlc^^^

*1

-w . - j - q

• ppKT i4kil^ » - ) #r> • i 0{i>*«'n 1 0 uiKf

'

I I HIM ".. ' 'Sfc

‘'Sm''

TM »- ?^j .Bfefa8tt?ft?)iiflt-&w 0wt

.,„ .. W

'* ' ^ ^ a •'ii*' "

' ^ ^: • -jui'

’^

" '" '

' wiAaMATa^o MAa^ua'^AMoitAiijt

1 t ir^i 1-V)li^ • ' "^: .*, >cs<«':3a ^MOT^-'^miAtl

In (k«T>.U ^ixt A»^it J?_^ 5T 00A^ 3»AH.fl^AS««A0«O

.11

'lltit with*?; ending' th« comjjjfll^'

r*-r.--'* ^>’ - •*# bcttH^'’handieBp|^4'

I ,,) »w,1.4*V.- «

8aa>ia»'ie««i«u».«««u.ifti^ .k-’m «<i» .

' 0ft3 »rf 3 b&«fc03#ib tai0<jX3 0® vt^dw 'iJMf i

*

, ,i«W jW-'^'rt*<th1w‘fcft ^..11/Wwii, ^ ‘14m 3«/< I vd baJoubood O0W »* *

• V ' ^

' -•'^#tic{€ 0> t>*Ufi

^ tf#/-fcicAXXv' ia all .^, ® ,

' u« JawiiMA »^a r«4) «43 -161 nol3*lAq»T<j.«J blad a:tW xl^.a

irtT Kui tet. 'l9|^

’ ‘i • Wtb.' I 4;.»^ Ji

Kh* jKir

.Uabfl»»03a43aifi

' ? .in r/tfi tcicnc'i^. Jr4>/«Kljtl.tsiv b*Hldu^

'» iby' iv«3friwri .*.0 4i by'" h#/1'd.lOA|^^4^i#pS^ T^ii.

~

»!n7y*

~

'ai

r f I «|^ U4(( • . W|>-<^<|||i4ia4 '*(*j • r •^c«iiLi>ii . v""'

•ill b«3 |»fc#3fy

i^S ' iTsi.

’ "• m

f

' f* ^

!« i)H 3It t « V0-"f.

ii bosil

S

• r - . r^^i. »5-

•>v4,#l<)*t''IWI)!fifl^««»4. ;l'if*Bl?#''»a't«*y

!fuM^;Ar#«4l,, IW* l<9<nf<r'‘h*lt...Qt,

* m<v^

0(^0y:', .tit#

' ^ K->*c i ‘-'3lln!!«U/«*-wf*fc

;. ;W-> ijUa fVQ

k3#^iA.40(lli I. '*•• i‘" f' vl,.'l

ri4

m
rL
NBSIR