The San Francisco Chronicle
SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — San Francisco, amid intense lobbying, is poised to drop a requirement that skyscrapers have refill stations so firefighters can recharge their air tanks during a blaze.
For nearly 10 years, the city has required that new high-rises have the air refill systems, a move made after Los Angeles firefighters spent more than two hours lugging 600 air cylinders up 10 flights of stairs in a 1988 high-rise fire, and three Philadelphia firefighters died from smoke inhalation after running out of air in a 1991 blaze in a 38-story building.
But the air tank refilling systems, now in 20 San Francisco buildings, have never been used during a fire here, and some firefighters don’t trust them, despite praise from national experts.
Now San Francisco Fire Chief Joanne Hayes-White wants to allow high-rise developers the option of installing either the air replenishment system or a reinforced, specialized elevator for firefighters, which could ferry crews, evacuees and equipment, including air tanks.
“I understand the arguments that (the air system) is another tool for firefighter safety,” Hayes-White said. “We honestly believe that the fire service elevator offers more flexibility.”
Developers in San Francisco, who will bear the cost of either approach, have opposed the air system requirement for years, saying it protects a monopoly for the dominant player in the market, Rescue Air Systems of San Carlos.
The Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco, an advocacy group for real estate interests, has tried for years to change the air-system requirement. In 2007, Ken Cleaveland, the association’s director of government and public affairs, e-mailed the city’s Fire Commission, saying his group would support adding firefighter elevators, “but only if we could be relieved of also installing the single-source proprietary air replenishment system.”
The cost of the air replenishment system can vary wildly, from an average of $350,000 to more than $1 million.
To create a specialized firefighter elevator, one of the building’s elevators is reinforced with fire-resistant material and equipped with a pressurized air shaft to keep out smoke and drains for water.
The 2007 effort to amend the Fire Code was dropped amid opposition from some San Francisco fire officials and the firefighters’ union head at the time, John Hanley, who said the elevators were risky and that both systems should be installed. Now, another either-or proposal goes to the Board of Supervisors’ Land Use Committee on Monday as part of the regular Fire Code update. It’s backed by Hayes-White, top brass and the firefighters union, including its former president.
Advances in equipment
Hanley says that advances in equipment, such as high-capacity bottles that carry up to a one-hour air supply rather than the previous 30 minutes’ worth, now minimize the need for the air system.
San Francisco Supervisor David Chiu is carrying the Fire Department’s code changes at the board.
“If the Fire Department doesn’t want to require these systems, and rank-and-file firefighters don’t think they increase their safety, I don’t see why they should be mandatory in San Francisco,” he said.
Retired Fire Marshal Thomas Harvey has been an active opponent of the air system requirement, saying it should be removed because it didn’t comply with state law governing when local building standards can be more restrictive than state ones.
E-mails show Harvey had a close relationship with BOMA, seeking input and appearing regularly at its meetings for briefings about this and other issues.
“You will be definitely missed,” Cleaveland e-mailed Harvey in May, when Harvey informed him he would retire. “You will always be welcome at BOMA.”
‘Developer interests’
Anthony Turiello, CEO of Rescue Air Systems, who has enlisted a phalanx of lobbyists to press his case, said “developer interests and BOMA are driving the Fire Department to make the change.”
Fire officials deny that. Harvey said he was motivated solely by the broader public interest, and Hayes-White said, “It’s absolutely appropriate for us to have a good working relationship with BOMA.”
City fire officials and some firefighters said they prefer elevators and are skeptical of the air system. Some worry about contaminants getting into the system or traffic jams at refill stations. The department also does not train on the system, despite having one at its training facility.
“There are a number of our members and operational experts who have a reluctance and hesitation about using the system,” said Hayes-White, who sees the specialized elevators as a viable alternative.
“We do think there is redundancy,” she said. “We see it as an either-or.”
That is not a universally held view.
In Phoenix, which has required air refill stations since 2004, some buildings also have firefighter elevators, said Fire Marshal Jack Ballentine.
“There is nothing that’s been proposed to me that would make me consider another option other than what we have in the code for Rescue Air,” Ballentine said. “I haven’t experienced any complaints from the firefighters. ... If anything, I’ve heard the opposite. It’s another tool for their safety.”
Richard Bukowski, a former senior engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology who was one of the investigators on the firefighter response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, said the two systems were not duplicative.
“I don’t consider the two being mutually exclusive or redundant,” said Bukowski. “The question is whether the firefighters are going to use (the air system).”
About 70 cities in eight states have some kind of firefighter air refill requirement, according to a report by Atlantic City, N.J., Battalion Chief Joseph Rush III advocating that his city adopt one.
San Jose, which required the air systems shortly after San Francisco did, changed in 2010 to allow either a firefighter elevator or an air system, but now the firefighters union is urging the City Council to switch back and require the air system in high-rises.
Elevators questioned
“Elevators are not reliable under fire conditions and are not located within the protection, support and egress that stairwells provide,” San Jose Fire Fighters Local 230 President Robert Sapien Jr. wrote to council members in August.
San Jose City Councilman Pete Constant said the 2010 amendment was an under-the-radar move favored by developers. He is now leading the effort to reinstate the air systems requirement.
“We have to prioritize public safety and the safety of our employees,” said Constant, who says developers exaggerate the system’s cost. “When you’re building multimillion-dollar buildings, a quarter million for the safety of the firefighter and occupants, I think, is a minor cost.”
Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio is not convinced.
“I just need someone to really explain why we should do something that the state doesn’t require that increases the cost,” he said.
Copyright 2013 The San Francisco Chronicle
All Rights Reserved