Engineered Systems - November 2008 - (Page 42)

It’s impossible to put a price on life. However, the fact that sometimes it must be done should be a further motivator to owners and engineers to get fire/smoke protection right. Revisit the past and then skip to the present, where one firm’s proactive approach meets standards, simplifies design and maintenance, and even reduces labor costs. BY ROBERT TROTTER, CBO, CFM uilding owners, managers, and industry professionals widely recognize that fire dampers, smoke dampers, and combination fire/smoke dampers are essential to any active fire protection and smoke control system. People responsible for these systems understand the purpose of these dampers. They know that fire dampers are closed by the presence of heat (which physically severs a fusible link), and smoke dampers are closed by a signal from a smoke detector or building control system. Failure to understand the applicable codes and standards and implement the inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements can be tragic and result in the loss of life and property. ASSESSING THE INVALUABLE When examining the World Trade Center disaster, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems Smoke Control Systems Sub-Tasks report said, “Installation of combination fire/smoke dampers in HVAC ductwork, which was not required in WTC 1 or WTC 2, would have acted to slow the development of hazardous conditions on the uppermost floors of the building .”1 Everything considered, the built environment does not compare to the World Trade Center, but the NIST report clearly points to the advantage of combination fire/smoke dampers in confining the effects of combustion products. Prior to the World Trade Center disaster, the MGM Grand Hotel fire, Nov. 21, 1980, in Las Vegas, resulted in the deaths of 85 hotel guests and employees. About 600 others were injured and approxi- B mately 35 firefighters sought medical attention during and after the fire.2 The National Fire Protection Association’s (NFPA) investigation of the incident found: “HVAC systems operated during the fire and contributed to smoke spread through the high-rise tower. The equipment, as far as could be determined, was not equipped with smoke detectors arranged to shut down the systems upon sensing products of combustion. In addition, some fire dampers were arranged so that they could not close when fusible links melted, and others did not close completely. High-rise tower corridors were utilized for supply air to guests rooms; this arrangement contributed to smoke movement in corridors and exposure to guests rooms.”3 The NFPA report identified the negligence to ensure damper compliance and emphasized the need for a comprehensive program for identification of damper types, their rating, locations, accessibility, inspection, functional testing, and maintenance. Failing to ensure that dampers are installed and maintained according to the manufacturer’s instructions, the equipment listing, and nationally recognized codes and standards, may lead to liability and years of litigation in the event of life loss or injury. While acknowledging that no amount of money can compensate for the death of a loved one, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission developed formulas for determining human losses. The study used $5 million per death and $166,000 per injury as 1993 values, and then used the Consumer Price Index to calculate corresponding values for later years for injuries only. The value of statistical life in 1980 42 En gi neer ed S y stem s November 2008

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Engineered Systems - November 2008

Engineered Systems - November 2008 Contents Editor’s Note HVAC Challenge Back2Basics Case In Point Commissioning Building Automation HVACR Designer Tips Show Me The Motor Money The IAQ Top 10 Putting A Damper on Tragedy Special: Lighting Controls Computers & Software Products Glossary Classifieds Advertiser Index Tomorrow’s Environment

Engineered Systems - November 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.