1 

National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee 

December 3, 2003 

My name is Donald P. Bliss, I am Executive Director of the National Infrastructure Institute's 

Center for Infrastructure Expertise - a position I recently accepted after more than 30 years in 

the fire service. The Center for Infrastructure Expertise is dedicated to improving the 

management and protection of the United States’ built infrastructure. 

I appear before you today as a representative of the National Association of State Fire 

Marshals' Partnership for Safer Buildings. In previous meetings of the National Construction 

Safety Team Advisory Committee, the National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM) 

has shared information on our mission, members, methods 

and the results of our work. 

As stated earlier, we have recommended specific changes to the model building and fire 

codes, and we have shared our concerns with architects, builders and owners nationally, 

authorities having jurisdiction, and other public officials who have expressed an interest in our 

work. 

This evening, I would like to focus on a letter NASFM received last summer from an individual 

who lost his home to fire in South Carolina a few years back. He had read the Partnership's 

report and had five questions. Permit me to read them into the record and as I do, please think 

how you would answer. 

1. What were the model building codes' technical and scientific justifications for reducing the 

requirements for the protection of structural steel? Relaxation of these standards seems to 

contradict all that we are hearing about the need for redundancy in fire protection from the 

National Institute for Standards and Technology and other independent organizations. 

2. For the past few years, the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission has 

worked with industry to recall millions of defective automatic fire sprinkler heads. 

Additional recalls have been announced as recently as last month. In reducing the 

requirements for protective coatings, were these recalls considered? Is the public safe when 

both sprinklers and protective coatings may be insufficient? 

3. Why is there no requirement to ensure that protective coatings remain in place over time? 

4. Do the model codes intend to implement the recommendations of the Partnership, and if so, 

when? If they do not, what other means are available to make all necessary changes to the 

building codes in a timely manner? 

5. The safety of health care facilities and schools are a priority for all Americans. To the best 

of your knowledge, have the inadequacies outlined by the Partnership as yet comprised the 

safety of school children or patients? 

You may not know the answer to this last question, but I can tell you that we had little difficulty 

finding three schools in South Carolina that were, or are currently, being built to the new 
2 

International Building Code (IBC) and have significantly less fire protection than they would 

have had they been built to comply with the Standard Building Code (SBG) it replaced. 

Under the SBC, each of these schools would probably have had a 1/1/1 hour rating which, as 

you know, refers to the ability of the columns, beams and roof to withstand heat and therefore 

avoid collapse. 

But under the new IBC, in the New Kelley Middle School, a 2-story 150,000 sq. foot building, 

the stairwells are the only areas required by the code to be fireproofed. At Blythe Academy, 

which is now currently occupied, only the ceiling in the mechanical room is fire-rated. This 

essentially means no fireproofing for a 119,000 sq. foot building housing children. Finally, at 

Paris Elementary School, a 2- story, building, only one room is required to be fireproofed 

under the new code. 

NASFM is taking care in drafting our response to the gentleman from South Carolina - in part 

because they are fair questions that deserve honest answers. We have asked both the 

International Codes Council and the National Fire Protection Association for help in doing so. 

But we are taking extra special care with this response because the gentleman from South 

Carolina is Senator Ernest Hollings, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science and Transportation. 

The questions Senator Hollings has asked cut to the heart of the issues before this Advisory 

Committee. The only issue worth debating is whether people are reasonably safe in buildings. 

The economic issues that so often are raised are unimportant when it comes to protecting a 

single firefighter from the unexpected collapse of a building. If we are taking chances with the 

construction of schools, what chances are we taking with commercial office buildings? 

Last week, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina had some questions of us on the same 

subject. Are buildings safe? We have our doubts. 

NASFM commends the National Construction Safety Team Advisory Committee for its 

contribution to building safety. We are confident that our efforts, in combination, will effectively 

result in the improvement of building safety.