Skip navigation
All Places > NFPA Today > Blog
5 6 7 8 9 Previous Next

NFPA Today

4,954 posts

fire in building under construction

March was a rough month for fires in buildings under construction, wreaking millions of dollars in damage and undoubtedly causing major headaches for public officials.  Thankfully, no one was killed or seriously hurt in these fires, but their toll can be added to the over 6,310 fires in buildings either under construction, demolition, or major renovation between 2010 and 2014, which caused 9 deaths and $280 million in direct property damage.  Add to that at least $210 million in losses—and 2 fatalities--from construction site fires in 2017 and 2018, and it’s clear that a lot of construction sites have neglected fire safety.

Last month, fires included:

To help prevent these fires from happening, local officials must insist fire safety is a high priority for construction site owners, managers, and workers. To do this, they can take three critical steps:

  • Require the use of NFPA 241 Standard for Safeguarding Construction, Alteration, and Demolition through the fire code.  Make sure your community enforces the most recent one to keep up to date as construction practices change;
  • Follow the standard and make sure your community requires written fire prevention plans as part of the construction permit process; and
  • Talk to your community’s fire officials to go beyond the minimum requirements—consider extra security, a higher trained workforce, and more fire suppression and detection measures.

To raise awareness of this issue and offer steps policymakers should take to reduce risk in their communities, the NFPA Fire & Life Safety Policy Institute developed this policy brief.  Download it today to learn more. Find additional information and resources on the Policy Institute’s webpage.

A few weeks ago, the comprehensive First Draft Report along with the First Draft of NFPA 1, 2021 edition, was published. In the report, documentation of all first revisions, committee inputs, and responses to public inputs, are available for public review. The First Draft is the public’s first view of the current state of the document and the newly introduced changes and topics that were voted on by the Fire Code Technical Committee.

NFPA’s codes and standards must remain relevant and useful to our variety of customers who use them. One way to do this is to continue to evolve and introduce requirements for new and emerging technology into our codes and standards. NFPA 1 did just that in its First Draft by adding a chapter on Additive Manufacturing (3D printing).

Additive manufacturing is defined as ‘a process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, sometimes referred to as 3D printing’. There are two types of this process that are addressed in NFPA 1. Industrial Additive Manufacturing is 3D printing operations that utilize combustible powders or metals, an inert gas supply, or a combustible dust collection system or that create a hazardous electrical classification area outside of the equipment. Nonindustrial Additive Manufacturing do not create a hazardous electrical classification area outside of the equipment and do not utilize an inert gas supple or combustible dust collection system. In general, it’s a process in which a material, such as plastic or metal, is added in layers until a fully designed item is whole and complete.

3D printing is not a completely new process, but its popularity has been growing, the technology is evolving and 3D printers are becoming more mainstream and more widely available to businesses and to the public. It is being conducted in a variety of occupancies: personal residences, healthcare, businesses and industrial operations and can produce everything from small plastic gadgets to large metal jet engine parts.

But what place does additive manufacturing have in a fire code? In the September/October 2018 edition of NFPA Journal, Angelo Verzoni cited a study published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal which found that the plastics used in smaller, desktop 3D printers (nonindustrial processes) can produce hazardous volatile organize compounds and should be used in well ventilated areas. Because most of the materials used in the process are combustible, the primary concern of larger 3D printers, likely classified as industrial additive manufacturing, is the production of combustible dust. The printing process generates dust and can produce very small particles. Some metals used in the process can burn very quickly and produce high temperatures. All of this being a concern to building owners, fire inspectors, equipment operators and occupants.

The Fire Code is addressing these issues by requiring listed equipment, safe dust collection and management processes and safe use and handing of any associated hazardous materials. Other NFPA documents such as NFPA 652 and NFPA 400 are referenced for their expertise on the relevant topics associated with the additive manufacturing process.

3D printing is an exciting technology and we are sure to see more of it in the future as the equipment advances and products that impact our day to day lives are produced by 3D printers. The Fire Code is sure to follow these advances and ensure that our customers are provided with requirements to keep their buildings, occupants and property safe from fire incidents involving this process.

To view the details of the NFPA 1 First Draft Report and new Chapter 46 visit We are also seeking input from the public on the recent changes made to the Code. We invite you to participate in the process by submitting comments to NFPA 1 using the link on the page above.

Don't miss another #FireCodeFridays blog! Get notifications straight to your email inbox by subscribing here! And you can always follow me on Twitter for more updates and fire safety news @KristinB_NFPA

Thanks for reading!


Get NFPA information and updates by signing up for our monthly newsletters.

The following proposed Tentative Interim Amendments (TIA) for NFPA 86, Standard for Ovens and Furnaces; NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance, and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems; and NFPA 1977, Standard on Protective Clothing and Equipment for Wildland Fire Fighting; are being published for public review and comment:

  • NFPA 86, proposed TIA No. 1439, referencing 8.10.6 of the 2019 edition, closing date:  May 8, 2019
  • NFPA 1221, proposed TIA No. 1435, referencing,,, and of the 2019 edition, closing date: May 8, 2019
  • NFPA 1977, proposed TIA No. 1422, referencing Table,, Table, Figure,,, and Figure of the 2016 edition, closing date: May 14, 2019


Anyone may submit a comment on these proposed TIAs by the closing dates listed above.  Along with your comment, please identify the number of the TIA and forward to the Secretary, Standards Council by the closing date.

After a long period of drought conditions, much of the western and central portions of the United States have been saturated by flooding in recent weeks. Today the NFPA Archives takes a look back at an incident from April 3, 1958.


It all started out innocently enough. Sixteen year-old, Ronald Gregory of Oakland, California was wading through the flood-swollen waters of a local creek bed when he was caught by surprise and swept away with the strong current. He ended up traveling a fair distance downstream before he managed to grab the trunk of a willow tree and pull himself up to a precarious position in its branches. The image above shows the final rescue that was made by the San Leandro police and fire personnel.


For more information regarding this and other moments in fire history, please feel free to reach out to the NFPA Research Library & Archives.


The NFPA Archives houses all of NFPA's publications, both current and historic.


Library staff are available to answer research questions from members and the general public.

New York State has implemented a new law requiring retailers to only sell smoke alarms that feature 10-year, non-replaceable batteries. This requirement comes in response to people removing smoke alarm batteries, or not testing and replacing them as needed.


According to a CBSNewYork/AP story, New York experiences the highest number of fire fatalities each year; the goal of the new law is to help bring those numbers down.


“If I need a battery for the remote for the TV, I’m going to take it from the smoke detector. If I need a battery for a toy for my child, I’m going to take it out of the smoke detector. If the alarm keeps going off when I’m cooking, I’m going to take the battery out, and then they don’t put it back in,” said Tom McDonough, a firefighter and board member of the Fireman’s Association of the State of New York.


McDonough fought for the ban of smoke alarms with removable batteries for years. His efforts paid off yesterday when the ban went into on Monday, April 1.


New York State’s new law reinforces the importance of working batteries in smoke alarms. When batteries are dead or removed from alarms, the consequences can be fatal:


  • Almost three out of five U.S. home fire deaths result from fires in homes with no smoke alarms (40%) or no working smoke alarms (17%).
  • In fires where smoke alarms were present but didn’t operate, more than two of every five (43%) of the smoke alarms had missing or disconnected batteries.
  • Dead batteries caused one-quarter (25%) of the smoke alarm failures.


Smoke alarms with non-removable batteries typically feature 10-year batteries so that they don’t have to be replaced for the life of the alarm. Smoke alarms should be replaced every 10 years, or when the alarm begins to chirp, signaling that it’s running low. Also, to find out how old a smoke alarm is, look at its date of manufacture on the back of the alarm. The smoke alarm should be replaced 10 years from that date (not the date of purchase or installation).


What do you think of New York State’s requirement requiring retailers to only sell smoke alarms that feature 10-year, non-replaceable batteries? We welcome your thoughts!


I still refer to the building rehabilitation chapter of NFPA 101, Life Safety Code, as the “new Chapter 43.” It’s been in the Code since the 2006 edition; that’s something like 13 years. I guess it’s not so new anymore. Nonetheless, when I teach NFPA’s three-day 2018 Life Safety Code Essentials seminar, I sometimes encounter some confusion in the class with the concepts of change of use and change of occupancy. Here’s how it works:


Chapter 4, General, mandates any rehabilitation work on an existing building must comply with Chapter 43 (see 4.6.7). One of the rehabilitation work categories is change of use or occupancy classification. It should be noted that change of use or occupancy classification does not necessarily have to involve a physical change to the building; Chapter 43 applies whether a physical change occurs or not. To understand the difference between change of use and change of occupancy classification, refer to the special definitions in Section 43.2: Change of Use. A change in the purpose or level of activity within a structure that involves a change in application of the requirements of the Code. Change of Occupancy Classification. The change in the occupancy classification of a structure or portion of a structure.


The key words in the ‘change of use’ definition are, “that involves a change in application of the requirements of the Code.” An example I give is converting an office in a business occupancy into a storage room. The occupancy classification has not changed; it’s still a business occupancy because storage is permitted by to be considered incidental. However, general storage areas are considered to be hazardous in business occupancies per and This results in a change in the application of the requirements of the Code and is a change of use. Chapter 43 describes the requirements for change of use in 43.7.1. For this example, the creation of a hazardous area is covered by, which requires a new hazardous area to comply with the requirements applicable to the new use as though it were new construction. This means we would have to apply the requirements for new business occupancies in, which sends us back to Section 8.7. This requires either: 1) separation of the hazardous area from the remainder of the building by one-hour fire barriers and 45-minute doors, or 2) the installation of automatic sprinklers with a smoke partition separation and self-closing doors. Either way, some modification to the room and/or door is likely going to be required. Changes of use to other than hazardous areas might require compliance with the existing occupancy chapter requirements.


Change of occupancy is pretty straightforward: changing a building’s occupancy classification from one classification to a different classification. An example I give is when I worked in the fire marshal’s office in San Antonio (home of the 2019 NFPA Conference & Expo!) in the 1990s, we had several old office buildings on the Riverwalk that were bought by developers and converted into hotels. The former occupancy classification was business and the new classification was hotel and dormitory (this was back before Chapter 43 existed, so it’s a hypothetical application). To determine the requirements, the former and new occupancy classifications are assigned a relative hazard category classification in Table 43.7.3; these categories relate to the relative occupant risks for the various occupancies. In my example, both business occupancies and hotels and dormitories are assigned hazard category 3 (hotel and dormitory is a residential occupancy by definition). Where a change of occupancy creates other than an assembly occupancy, and the change occurs within the same hazard classification category or to a lesser hazard category, the building must meet the requirements of the applicable existing occupancy chapter for the occupancy created by the change, except that the requirements for automatic sprinklers, fire alarm systems, and hazardous areas must comply with the new occupancy chapter. For my office building-hotel example, the hotel would be required to comply with the requirements of Chapter 29 applicable to existing hotels and dormitories, except that automatic sprinklers, fire alarm systems, and hazardous areas would have to be provided/protected as required by Chapter 28 applicable to new hotels and dormitories. For other changes of occupancy, the requirements vary depending on the relative hazard categories.


Hopefully this will help you to better understand how the Life Safety Code applies to changes of use and occupancy classification and make your job a little easier. Join us at the NFPA C&E in San Antonio in June and check out some of those changes of occupancy for yourself!


Thanks, as always, for reading, and until next time, stay safe!


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 and click on “FREE ACCESS.”


Follow me on Twitter: @NFPAGregH

Within days of Florida Power & Light announcing plans to build the world’s largest solar-powered battery systems by 2021, NFPA has released its updated and expanded Energy Storage (ESS) and Solar Systems Safety Online Training. FEMA, underwriter of the initial training in 2015 (the world’s first), once again provided Assistance to Firefighters Grant money so that the free, self-paced training could be updated and promoted to the nation’s 1.3 million firefighters. This begs the question, “Are you prepared to respond?”

The Energy Storage and Solar Systems Safety Training, Fire Service Edition* will go a long way in Florida when that state’s proposed ESS facility eclipses the current largest system in Australia. Given the environmental, economic and sustainability virtues of solar and storage, Florida is just one of many states looking to revolutionize their electrical infrastructure with green technology. Texas, Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado, and Hawaii have also mandated widespread energy storage system deployment.

NFPA has been attuned to the solar and ESS industries for years and offers the fire service and others a host of research and resources at The updated 3-hour education module entails more solar content, new technological considerations, and relevant research so that firefighters are keeping pace with the potential fire and life safety hazards that may exist with these new energy innovations.

Firefighters taking the NFPA training will receive a certificate upon successful completion and learn critical insights including basic battery and solar system function and design; various failure modes and hazards associated with ESS and solar; pre-incident planning considerations; emergency set up and disconnect details; mitigation and emergency response strategies including investigations and air monitoring; and tips on dealing with electrolyte release, overheated batteries, and fires involving alternative energy systems. The goal is to keep first responders and others safe from HAZMAT issues, thermal runaway, battery explosion and re-ignition, and off-gassing.

To help a wider swath of professionals understand, install and deal with ESS – later this year NFPA will release NFPA 855, Standard for the Installation of Station Energy Storage Systems. The Standard, which aims to establish criteria for minimizing hazards, received over 800 public comments during a recent comment phase and attracted standing-room-only crowds during two workshops in the last year.

Applicants with code enforcement experience, research/testing skills, and manufacturing knowledge are being sought to participate in drafting the proposed NFPA Standard on Spaceports. Submit an application online by May 17, 2019.  
As some background on the project, the NFPA Standards Council approved a new project to develop requirements for privately operated spaceports.  After a review of all information provided, the Council voted to approve the development of a new technical committee and directed that a call for members be published.  Staff will return to the Council meeting in August, with a proposed start-up roster and a scope for the committee. 
This new standard will establish guidance on the construction and operation of facilities used to house, maintain, and deploy rockets (solid and liquid), space planes, and other similar craft.  It will also provide recommendations on static stands used for testing and the development of rockets and space planes, among others.



The 2019 Safety Stand Down online interactive quiz is live. Test your knowledge of firefighter decontamination at and be automatically entered into a sweepstakes to win a limited edition challenge coin commemorating this year’s Safety Stand Down theme, “Reduce Your Exposure: It’s Everyone’s Responsibility.” 


Studies indicate that firefighters are diagnosed with cancer more often than the public, and that firefighters experience more cancer-related deaths than the general population. To keep the topic of occupational exposure at the forefront, the NFPA, the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) Safety Health & Survival Section, and the National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC) are asking all fire and emergency services personnel to promote and take the 2019 Safety Stand Down quiz. First responders are encouraged to try their hand at 13 questions related to decontamination statistics, tips and resources through June 19.


Safety Stand Down is a joint educational and awareness initiative of the IAFC, NVFC, and NFPA. This year’s event takes place June 16-22. Agencies across the country are encouraged to suspend all non-emergency activities during that time so that they can focus on decontamination techniques, training, and education. An entire week is provided to ensure that all shifts and personnel can devote the necessary time to learning best practices and discussing key concerns. Topic information, training downloads, and videos can be found at, the official website for the Safety Stand Down event.

A bus fire in a remote part of Kazakhstan killed over 50 people in January 2018. (Associated Press)

Last week, a bus carrying tourists to Mao Zedong's hometown in southern China burst into flames, killing more than two dozen people. The cause of the fire wasn't initially reported, but one survivor said it seemed to break out at the back of the bus and quickly overcame passengers who didn't have time to escape, the New York Times reported


The Times said the incident exposes China's poor record of transportation safety. While government statistics claim an annual death toll of about 65,000 from transportation accidents in China, the World Health Organization estimates the real figure is closer to 250,000.


But, as I reported in the Dispatches: International section of the July/August 2018 issue of NFPA Journal, bus fires aren't all that uncommon in countries around the globe. In January 2018, a bus fire in a remote part of Kazakstan killed over 50 people. A couple of months later, 20 people died in a bus fire in Thailand. And in October of last year, children narrowly escaped death or injury when a school bus ignited in Wisconsin


The July 2018 Journal article was prompted by a spate of bus fires in Rome, and points out that even in countries like the United States, bus fires occur with some regularity—although they're far less common than other types of fires.


"A report published in November 2016 by the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which analyzed data from 2004 to 2013, found that fires in motor coaches (defined as buses designed for long-distance passenger transportation) occurred almost daily on average, while fires in school buses occurred more than daily for a combined average of over 550 each year," the article says. "And that’s just for two types of buses." Mechanical failures are usually to blame for the blazes. 


In 2005, 23 people died in a bus fire that occurred in a bus that was evacuating nursing home patients from Houston as Hurricane Rita marched toward the coast. In response to that incident, NFPA released a report that found about six bus fires occurred on average each day in the US from 1999 to 2003. More recent NFPA data suggests that figure has dropped to between four and five. 

It’s that time of year that so many American sports fans relish, as the dark of winter recedes, the days grow longer, and our thoughts turn to a certain beloved warm-weather sport.


I’m talking, of course, about professional bike racing and the venerable spring classics: the pageantry and passion of the Tour of Flanders, the fearsome cobbles of Paris–Roubaix, the punchy hills of the trio of Ardennes races. It’s the time of the season dedicated to the truly hard men of the pro peloton, the rouleurs who embody what bike racing should be—gutsy, impulsive, risky, all-out—rather than the practitioners of the careful “marginal gains” approach who can make a three-week grand tour about as exciting as watching a very, very long baseball game.


Actually, wait a second—the beloved warm-weather sport I’m supposed to be addressing is baseball.


Sorry. My bad.


Today is opening day for Major League Baseball—the earliest opening in MLB history, apparently—and a lot is going on with the design, use, and safety features of the stadiums where all those games are played. That applies to baseball’s oldest stadium—Boston’s Fenway Park, which opened in 1912—as well as its newest: Atlanta’s SunTrust Park, which opened in 2017.


Stadiums host a wider range of events than ever before, from athletic contests to concerts to extreme-sport spectacles like the Red Bull Crashed Ice tour that transformed Fenway in February. Accordingly, stadiums and the people who manage them must be able to provide safe operation for a range of audiences across an assortment of facility configurations.


NFPA Journal has reported on the steps necessary to make this happen, most recently in our July/August 2018 issue that included a “Perspectives” conversation with Nick Dawe, a deputy fire marshal and captain with Cobb County (Georgia) Fire & Emergency Services. Dawe worked extensively with the Atlanta Braves organization, as well as the management of SunTrust Park, to establish fire and life safety benchmarks for the stadium, which is part of a large town-within-a-town complex that includes other concert venues, restaurants, bars, a brewery, shops, and office and residential space.


Coincidentally, that same issue included a “Looking Back” feature recounting a 1993 fire at a previous home of the Braves, Atlanta–Fulton County Stadium.


Finally, it’s worth noting again our 2012 story that detailed the decade-long renovation of Fenway, a process driven in large part by fire and life safety considerations. “At 100 years of age, Fenway is the nation’s oldest professional sports stadium currently in use and the smallest stadium in Major League Baseball,” author Steve Adelman wrote seven years ago. “While not perfect, its recent improvements have made it remarkably compliant with NFPA codes regarding life safety, fire alarms, sprinkler systems, and emergency messaging. In a larger sense, Fenway’s modernization is a prism through which to view not just one important building’s rebirth, but also the growing importance of life safety in how people all across the country experience a day at the ballpark.”


And so another season is upon us. Play ball.



Confused about where certain topics are addressed in the latest 2019 edition of NFPA 13? You are not alone! Check out this article in PM Engineer Magazine which explains WHY NFPA 13 was reorganized and also provides an overview of who’s on first.

This week we mark one hundred and eight years since the disaster and tragedy known as the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire. On March 25, 1911, fire spread through the cramped garment factory on the 8th, 9th and 10th floors of the Asch Building in lower Manhattan. The rapidly spreading fire killed 146 workers, many of whom were young women.

The building only had one fire escape and this inadequate means of egress collapsed during the rescue efforts. Workers were crushed in the panic as the fought to open locked doors and only a few water buckets were available to douse flames.

After the incident, the labor movement and other groups created a public outcry over what was clearly a preventable tragedy. There was a renewed sense of urgency toward creating safer working environments and improving the rights of women and immigrants at this time as well.

According to OSHA, “the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire remained the deadliest workplace tragedy in New York City’s History” until the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001. Read more from the 100th anniversary in NFPA Journal.


For more information regarding this and other moments in fire history, please feel free to reach out to the NFPA Research Library & Archives. 

The NFPA Archives houses all of NFPA's publications, both current and historic. 

Library staff are available to answer research questions from members and the general public. 


Stay up to date by signing up for NFPA Newsletters.

Vicki Christiansen, who became full time chief of the United States Forest Service last October, has one of the most challenging tasks in all of federal government. Her agency, more than any other, is responsible for addressing the US wildfire problem, which over the past few decades has been defined by trends headed in all of the wrong directions.


I spoke to Christiansen over the phone last December, just a month after the Camp Fire devastated northern California, killing more than 80 people and causing an estimated $10 billion in damage. Our conversation, which has been published in the March/April issue of NFPA Journal, led us through a wide range of thorny issues, including the Forest Service’s budget quandary and proposed fix, as well as the agency's detailed strategy to address the growing and complicated problem of wildfire in America. 


To read Christiansen's thoughts about the changing scope of wildfire in America and what to do about it, and to learn more about the the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy, check out the Perspectives feature in the new NFPA Journal

The following proposed Tentative Interim Amendments to NFPA 86, Standard for Ovens and Furnaces; and NFPA 451, Guide for Community Health Care Programs, are being published for public review and comment:


  • NFPA 86, proposed TIA No. 1440, referencing of the 2019 edition, public comment closing date: 4/29/2019
  • NFPA 451, proposed TIA No. 1441, referencing and A., of the proposed 2020 edition, public comment closing date: 4/24/2019


Anyone maysubmit a comment  on these proposed TIAs by the comment closing dates listed above. Along with your comment, please identify the number of the TIA and forward to the Secretary, Standards Council by the closing date.

Filter Blog

By date: By tag: