Fire Hazard Assessment: Roadblock or Opportunity?

Abstract

If a civil engineer designs a bridge, the basic requirement is that the bridge be safe. The designer must guarantee that the bridge will resist the traffic across it and weather conditions it will be exposed to. On the other hand, a fire protection engineer designing the interior of a building is not explicitly required to vouch for the building's fire safety. Though the authority having jurisdiction states that the interior finish materials, for example, must meet some requirements in terms of various fire properties, the authority leaves implicit a critical assumption: the expectation that using these materials will ensure fire safety—in other words, it will ensure that nobody would die should a fire break out in the building. This procedure for designing fire safe buildings has been in place for so long, it gives a significant level of comfort to all involved, and it implies minimum risk: the manufacturer knows exactly what is required and the authority having jurisdiction does not feel responsible for making any additional commitments of either time or money to make changes.

Unfortunately, this practice has come to harm us over the years: new materials, products, or systems are being developed continually, some of which offer improvements, while others require compromises. Retaining the existing system can hurt the authority having jurisdiction in two ways: first, it may prevent the use of new designs, with overall better fire performance; and second, it may allow new designs to be assessed with inappropriate tools, so that they appear to be better than they are (examples of this type are too many to enumerate).

Alternative designs may be approved today through a fire hazard assessment that may lead to a request for a code variance, called an “equivalency.” Regulations or specifications, including those by the authority having jurisdiction, may also require a fire hazard assessment to ensure fire safety in so-called fire performance-based code. Two other practical reasons why such fire hazard assessments might be undertaken are, first, if a manufacturer wants to develop an improved product and compare its fire performance with that of existing ones, and second, if a lawyer involved in product liability fire litigation requires a more technical basis to justify the use (or condemn the potential misuse) of a product involved in a fire incident where something went unfortunately wrong.

There is understandable reluctance to follow the fire hazard assessment route because it may “rock the boat.” Manufacturers fear they may need to retest their materials or products, or that they may end up with increased product liability and, ultimately, lose market share. In addition, such assessments may call on the authorities having jurisdiction to develop technical reasons to accept or reject a design. However, proper fire hazard assessment should back up proven designs that have been shown, through long-term use, to be safe. Proper assessment should also ensure that adequate safety is maintained and business continues as usual. Finally, fire hazard assessment offers opportunities for entrepreneurship, innovation, and ingenuity, characteristics that drive our markets.