Kevin Kennedy: Faulty sprinklers an invitation to tragedy

The large fire in Christchurch's Cashel Chambers brought back memories of the catastrophic fire at Ballantyne's department store in 1947, also in Cashel St, which claimed the lives of 41 people.

That fire resulted in significant and far-reaching changes to the rules and regulations on fire prevention and firefighting.

The Ballantyne's store was made up of seven smaller buildings linked together and was four storeys in places. The rambling nature of the building meant that once a fire started it could travel quickly.

There were no fire sprinklers at Ballantyne's, although the country's first sprinklers had been installed in Auckland as far back as 1889.

A commission of inquiry found the Ballantyne's store was unsafe, although the building had been inspected and passed four years earlier.

One of the main recommendations was "the immediate installation of fire-prevention devices and alarms in larger buildings".

Fast forward to last year and a leaked report from the Fire Service in December which stated that as many as 90 per cent of sprinkler systems in buildings were faulty but were being signed off as safe.

What is the impact of this? How would you feel to find a major building in which you worked - say a multi-floored highrise - had defects in its fire-sprinkler system?

Sprinkler systems automatically detect a fire, transmit an alarm and control or douse the fire. They are in places where people cannot always be present, and operate only as needed in the immediate vicinity of the fire.

They allow buildings to have high life-safety levels and can prevent fires from reaching destructive proportions, as at Cashel St.

This may mean the difference between a minor interruption and a prolonged or permanent shutdown for occupants.

Automatic fire sprinklers are widely acknowledged as being the best form of protection for most buildings. So why did the Fire Service report find what it did, and what is the likely impact?

An owner of a building for which a compliance schedule has been issued by a local authority must supply that body with a building warrant of fitness each year.

The purpose of the warrant is to ensure that the specified systems (including sprinklers) in the building are performing and will continue to perform to their set standards.

Responsibility for maintenance and upkeep lies with the building owner. An incompetent owner can, however, be advised by an inspector that the sprinkler system is faulty or does not meet the standard.

But the owner can still advise the council that the system complies, without having it fixed, for reasons usually associated with cost. The building could then be considered unsafe in terms of fire protection.

The Fire Service says it is powerless to shut down at-risk buildings because, under the Building Act, the power to audit and formally require rectification lies with local councils.

The Fire Protection Association, whose members design, install and maintain sprinkler systems, believes that councils do not exercise their authority sufficiently. But it also does not think the Fire Service report fully reflects the true national picture on sprinkler installations.

A study of more than 9000 fires in buildings with sprinklers in Australia and New Zealand has indicated that the sprinklers operated successfully in 99.5 per cent of cases. Internationally, the National Fire Protection Association in the United States has reported that, other than because of explosion, there has never been a multiple loss of life in a building with sprinklers.

But there is no doubt that the system of issuing compliance certificates for buildings in New Zealand means that some sprinkler installations do not meet building fitness standards.

The association is aware of defects that need to be fixed, some of which will not affect the operation of the sprinklers in an emergency. But is that good enough? What is the potential outcome of the situation for those who work in one of those buildings?

Association members are hamstrung by regulations that need to be changed to ensure proper standards and reliability of sprinkler-system installation and maintenance are upheld.

The association is working with Ministry of Internal Affairs to develop new rules for compliance, but it has to be recognised that unless the rules have teeth and inspections are carried out by people who have the right fire-protection qualifications, there will be no change.

Fortunately, there was no loss of life in the Cashel Chambers fire. But it does not take much to draw a line from 1947 to present practices, and to understand that unless all involved in the signing and acceptance of building warrants of fitness get their act together, a tragedy could occur.

* Kevin Kennedy is the president of the Fire Protection Association.