Skip navigation
All Places > NFPA Today > Blog > 2017 > February > 08

NFPA Today

February 8, 2017 Previous day Next day

NFPA copyright lawsuit, motion for summary judgment


The United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Hon. Tanya S. Chutkan) late last week issued a ruling that will support federal, state and local governments’ efforts to support public health and safety through the use of voluntary consensus codes and standards. On February 2, the court granted a motion for summary judgment filed by a number of standard development organizations (SDOs), including NFPA, ASTM International and ASHRAE. The court’s ruling permanently enjoins Public.Resource.org from its previous systematic infringement of numerous SDO copyrighted codes and standards. The ruling vindicates the longstanding public-private partnership pursuant to which government entities may, if they choose, incorporate by reference high quality safety codes and standards.

 

We are very pleased with the court’s thoughtful and well-reasoned decision, which recognizes the importance of a time-tested process that serves governments and individuals well and is vital to public health and safety.

 

The history of not-for-profit SDOs developing voluntary consensus standards goes back more than a century. Governments, businesses, and individuals across the country rely on a wide variety of works, from product specifications and installation methods to safety codes and standards.  SDOs, not resource-constrained governmental agencies, underwrite the substantial costs of developing standards.  


SDOs pay for the standard development process and invest in new standards with the money earned selling and licensing their copyrighted works.  This model allows SDOs to remain independent of special interests and to develop up-to-date, high-quality standards.  It also allows the U.S. government – and governments at all levels – the freedom to decide whether to incorporate these standards by reference without a drain on their limited resources.
 
NFPA has provided free access to all of its codes and standards for more than a decade. Many other SDOs also provide free online access to many standards as part of an overall commitment to safety.


The standards development process is an excellent example of a successful public-private partnership that benefits business, government and individual citizens. More information about the importance of codes and standards and how to get involved can be found on NFPA’s website.

In Part 1 of this series we discussed a novel example of a total wellness program.  In Part 2 we discussed ways you and your department can implement a Total Wellness Program in your service starting tomorrow.  This time we will talk about the future.  One of the really cool things the @NFPA does is send our staff liaisons out as much as is possible and reasonable so we can learn what new practices and resources are out there and bring that information back to our technical committees.  Our technical committees ultimately decide what is put into a code or standard but even if somethings don’t make it in, we as an organization want to make sure we are sharing that knowledge and information with the world. In my very short time with the association I have been so lucky to have been able to travel and learn from innovators all over the Country.  There are some really amazing things on the horizon for our emergency responders.  From innovative technology that uses the biometric sensors in smart phones to better track exposure times, to resiliency programs that focus on not just the responder but their families as well and create a healthy means for them to work through their stresses and issues.

 

One of the coolest concepts that is being discussed is the “Tactical Athlete.”  This is the best term I have ever heard to describe our responders.  Now you may hear this and think it “tactical, like totally tough and kick in doors and chase bad guys” but that’s not what they mean by this.  The context in which this was first presented is in the world of injury management.  Traditionally, if a responder gets hurt, they go to see an occupational health physician and that doctor refers them to specialists, but manages their injury and rehabilitation.  In the world of the tactical athlete, injuries are managed by sports medicine physicians.  This is because a first responder isn’t like someone who works in an office environment.  Occupational doctors see patients and try to best manage their care to get them back to their specific occupation.  For the most part, not always but mostly, these are people who work in an office or manufacturing who have a repetitive use injury and need to be rehabbed just enough to get back to work. 

 

Our first responders don’t fit into these traditional occupational boxes.  While there are many occupational doctors who have taken time and made effort to understand

the needs of responders and looked at innovating their care, there is still things that a sports medicine doctor has access to that they don’t.  Our responders sometimes do repetitive motion (ie; EMTs lifting and moving patients), go from complete rest to running upstairs and ladders (ie; fire fighters), and even go from an excited state to a completely aerobic state (ie; police officers in a foot chase).  All of this variation and stress takes a toll on the body similar to an athlete who exercise and makes repetitive motions for their skill but also has moments of complete change.  Your body must be flexible and maintained in such a way that it can handle these stresses. This flexibility and maintenance is what the sports medicine doctors specialize in.  A sports medicine physician also can reduce the time in which a responder is out of work. They do this by accelerating the time it normally takes to get imaging, make care decisions, and perform procedures.  In the traditional model, you would still have to see an orthopedist but after being referred and possibly treated by an occupational physician first.  There are less layers in the new model.

 

I spent some time with a sports medicine physician recently discussing this model.  Dr. Jennifer Luz is a sports medicine physician with Steward Healthcare in Boston and is one of the team physicians for the Boston Ballet, Boston Cannons Lacrosse team, Boston Breakers Women’s Soccer Team, and several local colleges.  Dr. Luz has always had an interest working with first responders as the granddaughter of a police chief and the daughter of a federal agent.  She was a resident at Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital in Boston and was involved in the care of victims and responders that where at the events of the 2013 Boston Marathon.  Dr. Luz recently made as simple analogy; “If Tom Brady hurt his shoulder, he would have an MRI within a day and surgery within a week.  This would be to not only expedite his recovery, but also to prevent any further damage while waiting for care or approval to receive care.  Why is a first responder any different?  Don’t we need to get them healthy and back at working helping/protecting us?”  This point illustrates the importance of changing our mindset and looking at responders in a different way.

 

There’s more to the tactical athlete concept than just the way responders are cared for.  There’s a component of maintenance that must accompany the care.  Maintenance of not just the body but also of the mind and spirit.  Many departments are looking at innovative ways to promote health and wellness as it relates to tactical athletes.  Some are working with companies to improve fitness like Boston with their O2X program.  Others are bringing in Yoga instructors to increase endurance and flexibility.  In Indianapolis they are conducting a nutrition study measuring the heart walls of fire fighters and trying to create ways to reduce cardiac issues in the fire service.  There is a behavioral component too.  Finding mental health clinicians that understand the responder world and life, performance coaches, mindful coaches, and working with families to integrate them into department life. 

 

When you step back and look at all of this, you have to ask… Why?  For too long being a responder has been too dangerous of a job.  Too many have died both on the job or too early after suffering a heart ailment or from the terrible effects of cancer.  How many have left the profession due to mental illness? How many of your co-workers both past and present have taken their lives?  How many families have been broken up because of the ravages and stress of these jobs?  How much money have you or others lost by being unable to work, either at your job, or if you’re a volunteer, at your day job because of an injury suffered helping others?  How much money has your department spent covering your shifts or expenses while you are out injured?  Is this money that could have gone to other programs?

 

The world of working as a first responder is hard.  The hours are long, the calls can be stressful, and frequently people feel like they are alone.  The long shifts and especially busier call volume days can create terrible eating habits and reduce your exercise and effort when you aren’t at work.  Many first responders get home for their shifts and just “crash out” this is the phenomenon of decompressing and isolating yourself while eating and watching tv or playing video games.  This frequently occurs because of the time they spend in a heightened state of adrenaline or excitement on their shifts and the body dumping and wanting to achieve balance.  Many feel as though their work is a family and their home is a family, but they have difficulty integrating the two.  The total wellness program and tactical athlete concept, as conceptualized, will intervene, help develop healthy eating and exercise practices, improve mental performance and coping mechanisms, and include their loved ones and make them feel as though they are a part of this process.  Long term benefits could include, reducing the number of cardiovascular issues, behavioral health issues, and cancer victims.  For the department they will reduced overtime and worker’s comp expenses, have an easier time keeping staffing adequate, and improve moral.  I know that for me (pictured)... This is something I certainly would have loved to be a part of in my time on the streets!  It’s a win-win! 

A few weeks ago, in my #101Wednesdays post about escape rooms, I talked about the importance of not locking occupants in buildings. Quite simply, when people are locked in buildings and a fire occurs, they have a tendency to die. So the Life Safety Code goes to great lengths to ensure occupants have the ability to open doors and get out of the building when they need to. (There are, of course, exceptions for occupancies like detention and correctional and health care, where occupants are secured in the building for their safety and ours.) The Code does, however, recognize the need to secure doors in the closed position, and that’s fine as long as people can easily get out. Thus we have the requirements for door locks and latches in 7.2.1.5 of NFPA 101 (you can review them online, for free

). In summary, occupants must be able to open an egress door with not more than one simple operation, without the use of keys, tools, special knowledge or effort, and under all lighting conditions, including no light.

 

Traditionally, doors have been secured closed mechanically; go up to the door, operate the releasing mechanism which mechanically retracts the latch, and the door opens. These days, thanks to Alexander Hamilton’s invention of electricity* (that was for my daughter), doors can be secured closed by electronic means, using electromagnets and electronic control hardware. Instead of mechanically releasing a latch, the occupant operates a releasing switch, which sends a signal to the control hardware, which in turn drops the power to the electromagnet and allows the door to open. From the occupant’s perspective, this door operates the same as a door with mechanical latching hardware.  Mechanical latches are pretty simple – not a lot of opportunity for failure. Electronic systems are more complicated and have more potential failure modes, so the Code needs to address them.

 

The requirements for electrically controlled egress doors are located in 7.2.1.5.6 of NFPA 101. Six criteria are specified:

(1) The hardware for occupant release of the lock must be affixed to the door leaf.

(2) The hardware must have an obvious method of operation that is readily operated in the direction of egress.

(3) The hardware must be capable of being operated with one hand in the direction of egress.

(4) Operation of the hardware must interrupt the power supply directly to the electric lock and unlock the door assembly in the direction of egress.

(5) Loss of power to the listed releasing hardware must automatically unlock the door assembly in the direction of egress.

(6) Hardware for new installations must be listed in accordance with ANSI/UL 294, Standard for Access Control System Units.

Where these criteria are met, the door should operate just like any other egress door, and it is not considered a special locking arrangement. Special locking arrangements are addressed in 7.2.1.6; I’ll discuss those in a future post.

 

Just yesterday, I had an advisory service call about electronic locks. I knew immediately what the caller was going to say – I hear it all the time. “I have a door that’s locked with an electromagnet. To get into the facility, you swipe a key-card and the door unlocks.” No problem, NFPA 101 doesn’t care about occupants’ ability to get into the building - only their ability to get out. Caller: “It’s also tied into the fire alarm system, so the magnet will release when there’s a fire.” To which I replied, “I see. And how does someone get out under normal conditions?” Caller: “Oh, they have to swipe a key-card.” Me: “I see. What if they don’t have their key-card?” Caller: “Well, it will unlock if the fire alarm goes off.” Me: “What if the fire alarm doesn’t go off for some reason?” Caller: “Oh, there’s a push-to-exit button on the wall by the door.” President Trump: “WRONG!” While this might sound like a compliant arrangement, it’s not, because to open the door, an occupant would need to know about the push-to-exit button, which might not be visible in an emergency if the lights go out (special knowledge). The door has to be able to be opened by releasing hardware attached to the door leaf, which is typical of mechanically latched doors, and is a requirement for electrically controlled egress doors.

 

Another question we sometimes get relates to standby power. If the electronic locking system is provided with standby or emergency power, are the doors required to unlock if the building loses power? The answer is no, as long as the system functions like it’s supposed to when powered by an alternate source. If the electronic system loses primary power and there’s no backup, the locks are required to fail-safe – that is, unlock.

 

The Life Safety Code got its start as the Building Exits Code; I can’t overemphasize the need to provide building occupants with free egress. If the provisions I’ve described here are followed, security can be provided without sacrificing life safety. I hope you’ll return for a future installment of #101Wednesdays. Until then, stay safe!

 

*IMPORTANT HISTORICAL ACCURACY DISCLAIMER: For all you 8th graders doing your science fair projects on egress doors, Alexander Hamilton didn’t invent electricity. As we all know, Hamilton was a hip-hop artist who founded the American financial system and died in 1804, years before the invention of electricity by Al Gore, who also invented the Internet. #ItsMyBlogICanHaveFunIfIWant

 

Got an idea for a topic for a future #101Wednesdays? Post it in the comments below – I’d love to hear your suggestions!

 

Did you know NFPA 101 is available to review online for free? Head over to www.nfpa.org/101 and click on “Free access to the 2015 edition of NFPA 101.”

 

Follow me on Twitter: @NFPAGregH

Filter Blog

By date: By tag: