# have a liability question



## mtodd2qq (Aug 3, 2017)

Hi everyone I am Marcus and have been a long time follower here. I have never had to post but I have run into a situation where I need some help. And this will somewhat longer then I would like because I want to fill in som background to help everyone understand what I am looking for.

I have been in the industry for over 20 years and have been teaching for 15 years. I entered theatre in my mid twenties after working 6 years heavy construction and manufacturing. Went back to college, took a theatre class as a general studies credit and have been here ever since.
A little back ground info:
Currently I am theatre technical faculty and resident TD at a small rural college where we have a thrust stage, a dance space, and a black box. I have been here three years and am the first tech/production person, educated with an MFA, that has ever been here. What they have had is a two person design faculty. One person doing costumes and the other designer doing everything else. I have found that the former designer/designers had made a number of personal modifications to the venues for his/their own design purposes. Examples, (and the big ones,) sections of the lighting grind had been cut out, homemade follow spot positions had been (poorly) crafted and hung from the ceiling, homemade doors ways cut into the walls of the theatre, safety railing cut out. Just lots and lots of WTF. I am getting most of it fixed and repaired but it is slow going. And the majority of the faculty....I am not going to go into that. Right now I am looking into our venue curtains, which have not been cleaned since 85 or 93, when they were purchased. They are no longer flame retardant and will probably be a liability if we have a fire. I am getting push back on getting them treated and why is this my concern?
This is were I could use some help. I have always heard that since I know what the safety risks are, that I can also be held liable if something were to happen. Does anyone out there actual know where this is written down at, or what civil codes I can point to? I found if I point to the documentation, like the IFC or NFPA, or best practice articles, it get things moving. But I am also worried I have hit the saturation point, and things will stop. I want to know where I sit in this and if its time to maybe move on. Thanks


----------



## Morte615 (Aug 3, 2017)

The biggest thing to keep yourself covered is documentation. I try to avoid having face to face conversations about safety related things as that can easily turn into a He said She said. If you do have to have those always follow up with an email stating what was said. That gives them a chance to dispute something and if it ever comes to legal action you have something to point to and say, "See we did discuss it!"


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 3, 2017)

Unless you have lot of net worth, I would not worry too much. Unfortunately you could loose your job if you make an issue of safety or if someone gets hurt on your watch. All you can do is put your concerns in writing in a calm and careful manner and submit to your supervisor, keeping a record.

Is there a person on campus responsible for safety? Maybe try to get them interested. You need to spend time developing allies more than becoming an expert on the issues. Besides, experts come from faraway, never nearby, wherever you are.


----------



## Van (Aug 3, 2017)

If you have filed memos, emails or letters, keep copies. Document and date any conversations you might have, as soon as possible < just like James Comey> after the fact. There is not going to be a place in the NFPA that says "You sir are responsible because of your title" Let that go. If you have made management and facilities aware of the issues as you see them then you have acted as a concerned party. If your recommendations and or suggestions are not acted on, is out of your control.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 3, 2017)

It is all about priorities - your own liability versus concern for other people's health and well being. And guilt - like if I had done more that person would not have been hurt. And then just how bad is it? Good chance that more that half the curtains on stages in the US don't meet fire code, maybe more or many more. After all when I did a lot research on fire safety curtains, the best I got from contractors and experts was maybe 50% worked, and one notable (and deceased just to jog anyone's memory) expert said of the last 12 inspections, not one fire curtain was working. So perspective is important as well. Documentation is good, especially if it does become litigious. (As Van said - the Comey thing - though I'm not sure how that helped him yet.)

There are issues that deserve - almost require - one to become an a$$hole with noise, threats to call officials (and the will to follow through) etc. Chains and locks on panic bars in public buildings when occupied will always put me in that holier than thou fix it this minute mode.

And there are issues, perhaps your curtains, where a methodical drumbeat with a goal replace them (with inherently - permanently - flame retardant fabric) within a few years may be reasonable.

I think you're are ahead of the average for recognizing the situation and asking for advice.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 3, 2017)

What state are you in? Most states have adopted the IFC with modifications, some have them online. You can google "Fire Prevention Fire Code (Your state name)" and you might find it. 2015 is the most recent version from the ICC. Depending on the state, you might have the 2012 version in place, since they get updated every three years, then local states adopt them after that, but not always immediately. Look at Chapter 8, in particular Section 807, 807.2.2, 807.3.1, and 807.4. Also look at bulding code (IBC) Section 8, 803.3. Quick rundown: Your venue is a Group A occupancy use. The curtains need to meet NFPA 701 (which is a vertical flame test.) The flame resistance needs to be maintained. You need to provide documentation that the NFPA 701 flame resistance is in effect, ie, maintained. This is really not a big deal, and not hugely expensive. 

Note that the IFR curtains need to be 'maintained' with documentation the same as cotton. If your curtains are in OK to good shape, get them treated. If they're ragged, get new ones. 

Generally, from a liability point of view, I agree with what people above have said about keeping a paper trail for yourself. However, the school will be the ones liable, not you (though it seems one can sue anyone for anything, so.....). If there's an inspection and there's a violation, it'll go to the school, not you. 

Get Public Safety involved. Get the Insurance/Risk department involved. They really don't want a fire. 

If you can't find your IFC or IBC online, or need other help, contact me offline.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 3, 2017)

Tom Andrews said:


> You need to provide documentation that the NFPA 701 flame resistance is in effect, ie, maintained. This is really not a big deal, and not hugely expensive.



Generally I don't disagree with your statements but you should be aware there is no longer a valid field or match test in 701 and hasn't been one since before 2000. That means a lab test. I don't know what that costs - $500-1000 or more I'd guess - but I think it will destroy a good chunk of fabric. In short a conundrum. 

Practically, this means clean and treat and rely on the treaters certificates or replace. Since good cleaning and treating can cost as much as half replacing, and it will generally be good for only five years before all over again, I never recommend cleaning and treating cotton velour curtains, just replace with IFR.

YMMV


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 3, 2017)

The field test was taken out of NFPA 701, and is a stand alone standard NFPA 705. It's really a guideline for field testing, emphasizing the importance of accumulated experience of the person doing the testing. On the other hand, while it's just a guideline, they did make it into a standard, and have not revoked it. It's useful. 

NFPA 701 lab test costs vary, $200 - $350 depending on where you go. It's gone up a lot recently. Used to be $75 to $150 about 6 years ago. 

The way it works, typically: a flame retardant company (applicator or manufacturer) will treat the curtains and provide a certificate that says the curtains meet NFPA 701. They know that because they have 3rd party testing done of that particular chemical on that particular fabric. The certification is usually good for 3 to 5 years, depending on the company and the location of the work. At this point the LIABILITY shifts to the applicator. 

While it's not necessary to clean curtains before treating them to be FR, it's not a bad idea, but it's rarely done. Some places care for their curtains very well, brush them down regularly, etc, so it's not really an issue. Nonetheless, it's NOT mandatory to clean curtains before they are FR treated. The people that say it is are really cleaners first, flame retardant applicators second. Or they are uninformed. 

Cost of FR treatment is generally 25% of the cost of new cotton FR curtains. Around 20% of new IFR polyester curtains (IFR fabrics costs more). These ratios vary with quantity. The more you have, the cheaper it is for flame retardant treatment. I think the lowest I've gone this year is approximately 12% of new cost, which was at a large PAC with lots of large curtains. 

According to IFC Fire Code, curtains need to be 'maintained' FR with documentation, even the IFR ones, so we're back to the field test. Again, the LIABILITY can shift to the people doing the test, and providing certification. And yes, the NFPA 705 test is performed as a way to verify 701. People that do this all time can tell the difference between something passing and not passing. Good FR companies have their own 701 test in shop and have done years of comparisons, so they know how a test in 705 will compare to 701 and be consistent. 

IFR curtains can be compromised and not be sufficiently FR anymore, and not pass NFPA 701, nor the field test. So, while they a good long term investment when you're ready to upgrade and drop a chunk of cash, they are not a silver bullet. 

On the issue of field testing: in some places a local fire department can do a field test for you if you ask them to. They might say no, so don't be surprised if they turn you down. 

So, I'll repeat what I said above: if your curtains are in OK to good shape, get them treated. If they're old and ragged, consider replacing them with IFR if your budget can make it work. At a minimum and a starting point, have someone test them for you so you know how flammable they really are. Code and bureaucracy aside, think safety. You'll want to know what you've got and how much of a fire hazard you have on your hands. That's really the most important for you right now, so that you know how to proceed.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 4, 2017)

On NFPA 705 and the field test, I encourage anyone interested to read it - free reader online - but this section says it all for me. It goes on to say (3.2 added in 2015 edition): "This recommended practice should not be used to determine if a textile or film is flame retardant." Most of the standard focuses on methods to not start a fire. 705 is not referenced by the IBC, IFC, or LSC .I do not recommend using or relying on a field test. YMMV.


----------



## mtodd2qq (Aug 5, 2017)

Thank you all for the advices. It pretty much confirmed my thoughts. I have been worried I was to close to the trees to read the situation correctly but I don't think so. Most of the info about curtains and regs I knew but its always good to have the confirmation. My chief concern was my interaction with the rest of the college and then my liability with the continue move to bring our venues and productions in a realm of safety that is starting to stall out. Unfortunately to get attention about the 'this immediately needs attention (cut out safety railing and lighting grid sections , missing fire doors, block fire exits, ect)' I had to get very vocal right off the back. And that polarized peoples view of me. I also think I have crossed into that point where the rest of my faculty are finished listening and just want to go back to doing shows anyway they can. And if that means taking a fire door off it hinges to allow an actor to travel 30 seconds quicker, well then that's what they have to do. And as they have been here for 20 years plus and practicing the craft that way I am not going to change it nor am I going to really be able to build allies in this case. So I will keep documenting and now start looking. thanks . And if I sound a little bitter its because I am, and disappointed. Bill you mentioned a lot of things like living with yourself if things go bad and so one. What you didn't touch on was that every time we as educator's cut a corner, we are telling the students watching that this behavior is acceptable. And they are out their either mimicking this same practice, which is going to get someone killed or unemployed. It just feels like we are violating their trust to teach them well. again thanks all


----------



## SteveB (Aug 5, 2017)

Tom Andrews said:


> On the issue of field testing: in some places a local fire department can do a field test for you if you ask them to. They might say no, so don't be surprised if they turn you down.
> .



In NYC the job of testing is no longer the NYFD, instead there are licensed companies. Fortunately that very same testing company also does the treatment, so one stop shopping as it where. 

OTOH, we've yet to have any of our soft goods pass the test........


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 5, 2017)

Yes. Demonstrating and tolerating poor practices in an educational setting is much worse because you are just propagating it.

There is what I call a backstage culture, where the best in us tries to emulate in an educational institution what we see in a professional setting. That's fine if you have both the qualifications and the budget but usually that is not the case. The well meaning but unqualified people (and I think the worst I have seen was work by the parents of high school students) are bad enough, but trying to do expensive effects with virtually no budget is too often disastrous. Just the collapses of the three homemade pit fillers a few years ago that all made national news is a good example of that.


----------



## derekleffew (Aug 6, 2017)

Thought this story might be relevant to the conversation: http://www.alternet.org/environment...-retardants-big-win-families-and-firefighters .
Specifically @Tom Andrews , care to comment?


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 6, 2017)

SteveB said:


> In NYC the job of testing is no longer the NYFD, instead there are licensed companies. Fortunately that very same testing company also does the treatment, so one stop shopping as it where.
> OTOH, we've yet to have any of our soft goods pass the test........



In NYC there's a mandatory cycle of treatment every three years. It's overkill, but there it is. I remember you had said once which venue you're at, but I forget. 
If curtains are treated one year, except for odd situations, they should pass testing the following year, and all or most should pass the year after that.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 6, 2017)

derekleffew said:


> Thought this story might be relevant to the conversation: http://www.alternet.org/environment...-retardants-big-win-families-and-firefighters .
> Specifically @Tom Andrews , care to comment?



(in reading this over before I post, it's a little rambling. Sorry)

This is a very interesting development in the general war on specific toxic flame retardants that are used in foam and plastics, and is the final outcome of the original bill that was introduced in Maine somewhere around 1999 or 2000. From what I remember, Maine was the first state to introduce a bill to limit flame retardant usage in furniture, and is now the first state to enact this specific legislation. 

If you read the bill (https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=HP0138&item=9&snum=128) it prohibits flame retardants of ALL types in residential furniture. On the usage side, it's for residential use only, and it excludes commercial, public, and institutional usage. On the chemical side, it targets not only FR chemicals that are known to be toxic - specifically pentabromodiphenylethers and decabromodiphenylethers (pBDE and dBDE) - but it says ALL - including halogen, phosphor, nitrogen, and nanoscale FRs. Note that this is for NEW items, not used. 

On the plus side, even though US manufacturers stopped using these FR chemicals several/many years ago there have been findings of furniture imported from other countries for US companies that have these chemicals. So even though a US furniture company might have specifications for its contractor overseas to specifically not use certain FR chemicals in the furniture, stateside testing has found these chemicals being used. So, it's good that this is now not only a company specification (read: market driven), but it's also law now. For Miane, its' extremely broad. 

As general info: the FR chemicals that we're talking about are used for many types of 'plastics' which covers everything from furniture foam to plastics in TV sets, computers, and phones. These chemicals are not used for, and are not compatible with, textiles. The most common FR chemicals used in textiles (excluding clothing: I'm referring specifically to curtains and fabrics used for wall coverings or upholstery. Firemen's clothing and similar are a whole different thing) are families of inorganic salts, which are water soluble, and because they are inorganic they are not absorbed into the body the way that some organic FRs have. These inorganic chemicals used for FR are also used for fertilizer, food additives for preservation, and approved for minor weed control in small home gardens in the UK. 

Historically, there was concern about pBDE and dBDE chemicals, which then developed into concern about PBDE (poly-BDE). Then there was concern about all halogens (bromide is a halogen), and there was a movement to ban all halogens, but that would include chlorine, iodine and fluoride. Then the focus was on all flame retardants, which I thought we had moved away from, but with this new law in Maine, it's sort of where we're at now. In the desire to ban 'toxic flame retardants' - which should mean 'the flame retardants that are toxic' - but people broaden things and it gets read as 'flame retardants, all of which are toxic'. 

In order to get upholstery to pass the accepted burn test without flame retardants - California TB 117 - the specification was changed in 2015 or 2016 so that the foam and cover material aren't exposed to a tiny very small flame, but are exposed to a simulated burning cigarette ember. With that change, most furniture will pass this test without the addition of FR chemicals. I, personally, don't feel safer. 

One of the arguable reasons that residential furniture needs less FR protection is the overall well-documented decline in cigarette smoking since the 1970s which has led to a great reduction in home fire starting in the living room, as well as the recent adoption of residential building code requiring sprinklers in new homes. Most home fires start in the kitchen now, I believe. 

So: the new law in Maine does not affect or address anything in the world of curtains and theaters. We'll see what other states do!

There is a lot of history and many threads to how all this comes together, and I'm not pretending to explain everything here.


----------



## RonHebbard (Aug 6, 2017)

Tom Andrews said:


> (in reading this over before I post, it's a little rambling. Sorry)
> 
> This is a very interesting development in the general war on specific toxic flame retardants that are used in foam and plastics, and is the final outcome of the original bill that was introduced in Maine somewhere around 1999 or 2000. From what I remember, Maine was the first state to introduce a bill to limit flame retardant usage in furniture, and is now the first state to enact this specific legislation.
> 
> ...


 @Tom Andrews If there are other options, why aren't we using them, is it a question of additional costs?
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 6, 2017)

Options to what, specifically? I threw a lot of stuff out there.


----------



## RonHebbard (Aug 6, 2017)

Tom Andrews said:


> Options to what, specifically? I threw a lot of stuff out there.


 @Tom Andrews Flame retardents that are not long term hazardous to fire fighters. . .
Toodleoo!
Ron Hebbard.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 7, 2017)

That's a loaded question. The short answer is that there may be no acceptable options due to fear. 

I haven't seen studies that prove a link between flame retardants and fire fighters' health, but they could be out there. My understanding is that some flame retardants in furniture and plastics are proven to be toxic. Cancer in firefighters has been increasing. There is a presumed link between the two. I don't know if the cancer increase in firefighters has been adjusted or contrasted to the increase in cancer nationwide. I don't know if there have been studies to see what carcinogens are present when foam and plastics burn in order to rule these out as contributors. 

As I mentioned above, the main chemical culprits are pBDE and dBDE. I think more have been added over the years. Even if we forget about all organic bromides, there are organophosphorous and organonitrogen based FRs that work well with foam and plastics. And yes, these can cost a bit more partly because they are new and also they tend to require heavier loading than bromides. Worldwide, the shift has been to organophosphorous based blends for the past 15 years for FRs in plastics. There have been some interesting developments with calcium and silica too, but those are either a long way off or they will fizz out. 

The question currently seems to be if we find a small percentage of chemicals within a chemical family to be toxic, due we ban or outlaw the entire chemical family, and possibly the entire usage?


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 7, 2017)

I found this too: https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2017/08/4...rdants-pregnant-women-leads-lower-iq-children 

"presented strong evidence of polybrominated diphenyl ethers’ (PBDE) effect on children’s intelligence."
"on July 25, legislation was introduced in the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to ban PBDEs and all other flame retardant chemicals from furniture and children’s products in sold in the City and County of San Francisco."


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 7, 2017)

I think the question is a little larger, and should include not just risks of the chemical but the benefits. I have been on stages on three occasions where there was a curtain which caught fire and did not self extinguish. One was very new and other two had valid certs. Know a lot about two other incidents with new curtains. One was on opening day of a major pac. All cotten curtains, all quartz lights.

The benefits of flame retardant need to be studied, especially in an era of LED.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 7, 2017)

Flame retardants are just one tool among many to prevent, limit, and put out fires, along with electrical standards, sprinklers, and probably others that don't come to mind immediately. These all work together and overlap each other to create a safer area, let's say theaters for now. A single approach doesn't work sufficiently, according to the groups of people who write codes and standards. People from each industry may claim differently.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 7, 2017)

Tom Andrews said:


> Flame retardants are just one tool among many to prevent, limit, and put out fires, along with electrical standards, sprinklers, and probably others that don't come to mind immediately. These all work together and overlap each other to create a safer area, let's say theaters for now. A single approach doesn't work sufficiently, according to the groups of people who write codes and standards. People from each industry may claim differently.



I am aware of how this works, having been active in writing codes and standards for thirty years, having become senior member of the NFPA Assembly Occupancy technical committee, and a long time participant in the ICC codes and standards, and the legacy codes (BOCA, ICBO, SBC) before that. Things change, except that fire retardants have always been of questionable value. Read John Freeman's On the Safeguarding of Life in Theaters from 1904. He did quite a bit of research and testing of flame retardants then (among many features of fire protection) and did not find them of much value. That they are required now is largely due to the efforts of the companies that make, sell, and apply fire retardants. Perhaps the move to LED lighting and away from quartz, since lighting seems to have been the overwhelming leader in the cause of fires onstage will be the catalyst for change.


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 8, 2017)

I'm sure you know how this works. But since we're having this friendly discussion on a public forum, I thought it might be educational for those who don't.

I'll look over John Freeman's booklet in more detail later. In my quick read, he's reputing claims that fabrics can be effectively 'fire-proof' and he says that if the whole stage area is burning up, the curtains will burn too, so the claim of 'flameproof' and 'fireproof' is false. In his analysis, he writes (pdf p. 55) "the best we can hope to accomplish is to 'flameproof' a fabric so that it will not ignite from a match, an electric spark, or a gas jet; or so that if ignited it will not burst into flame." Which is exactly what flame retardants do! They do not, and do not claim to make curtains 'not burn'. They make the fabrics and curtains not be the main contributor of turning a little fire into a big fire. 

He even develops a hand-held version of his fire test for fabrics to be employed by fire inspectors and others to verify the requirements of the 'new NYC building code', which is pretty cool. 

In the past, the common term 'flameproofing' has been used, which is very misleading. I and others consciously use the term flame retardant, not "-proof". 

I'll read the booklet in more detail, and I want to try to recreate his stove-pipe experiments; more later. In the meantime, I'll stand by the use of flame retardants as being effective at what they are designed and employed to do - which is to retard the spread of fire on the treated fabric. 

I thought electrical shorts and pyro were the leading contributors to "starting" fires on stage? Just my impression. I'm not aware of a compilation or detailed study. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires for some general info, not thorough nor complete?


----------



## Tom Andrews (Aug 8, 2017)

Another quote from this booklet, right after my quote above: 
"This much of protection, little and disappointing as it is, is _of great value and worth_ _all that a good process costs_, if it can be accomplished in practice without injury to fabric or colors; _for if we can thus prevent the little flame from quickly spreading, we have removed perhaps nine-tenths of the danger of a fire starting on the stage_. . . ." (italics added)

So, your mechanical engineer from 1905 says proper flame retardant treatment is worth every penny, and removes 90% of the danger of a fire starting. 

He also says that "it falls far short of what many have believed and loudly proclaimed was within easy reach" referring to making fabrics 'fire-proof'. Those claims are not made any more, for maybe 112 years, at least by those of us that deal with flame retardants.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Aug 8, 2017)

While I don't really consider night clubs similar to theaters, so far many of the same regulations apply. Many of the deaths in those fires had far more to do with lack or obstructed egress. Many did not have a certificate of occupancy and were more akin to the Oakland fire.

I agree pyro is a major cause and should not be allowed indoors. It didn't use to be allowed but a pyro manufacturer lobbied the Assembly Committee for the change. I was in the minority and 10 years later 100 dead in Rhode Island. (I looked and may have in boxes upstairs but could not find the name of the pyro manufacturer who lobbied for this change, but I did recognize the name on a box of pyro sitting next to the stage at the Station in a picture taken before the fire.) A third of the fires in that list where the origin was listed were pyro.

Where wikipedia says "electrical" I do not believe that means "shorts" only but includes lighting, and by looking at many reports, it is lighting, not shorts. Interestingly, the average life of a theatre - it was around 5 years before burning down in the 1800s - grew incredibly with the adoption of the electric light bulb - which was a few years after the Iroquois fire. And I think only 3 of 30 were identified as "electrical" - while 6 of 30 were "arson".

I simply observe that much non-professional scenery - which may be the majority of scenery in the US - including drops and curtains is not flame retardant at all. The common use of EPS and XPS is more evidence. And I observe that we remove the open flame and open arc lights long ago, and now we remove the fairly hot incandescent lighting that has ignited a number of fires, and smoking materials in buildings is greatly diminished, perhaps reliance on flame retardants should be reviewed, and the hazards weighed.


----------

