NFPA Journal - September/October 2020 - 54

Perspectives
What stops these protection measures from
being implemented?
Historically speaking, cultural resource property
managers have been reluctant to install automatic
suppression systems for fear of causing damage
during installation or damage due to malfunction.
But the reality is, the reliability of current systems
is quite good. With that realization, I think property
managers' perception of the risk has been evolving in recent years. We are finding most of them
much more supportive of installing fire suppression
systems, such as sprinklers, than they have been
in the past. Continued education of the property
managers regarding the fire problem and protection options is key to keeping things moving in the
right direction.
How can NFPA resources and
documents help?
Many years of the industry's experience with effective protection practices are captured in various
NFPA codes and standards, which can be a great
starting point for developing a protection program
for any historic or culturally significant facility.
For the safety of the overall facility there is NFPA
909, Code for the Protection of Cultural Resource
Properties-Museums, Libraries, and Places of
Worship, and 914, Code for the Protection of Historic
Structures. Then, for standards of installation of
specific systems, there is NFPA 13, Standard for
the Installation of Sprinkler Systems; NFPA 72®,
National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code®; and
NFPA 750, Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection
Systems. NFPA also has a wealth of resources for
training or recommendations for additional sources
of information.

nfpa.org/
perspectives
Read "Saving
History," an NFPA
Journal account
of the September
2018 fire at the
National Museum of
Brazil.
Read an NFPA
Journal article about
the challenges of
adding modern
fire and life safety
systems to historic
courthouses.
Watch a video by
Siemens illustrating
how a museum can
be protected using
modern fire and life
safety systems.

Where is NFPA 914 in cycle, and have any
recent notable changes been made?
We are currently working from the 2019 edition of
NFPA 914. We always strive to keep the language
and references current, coordinated, and applicable. Recent changes to the code have included an
enhanced focus on security and resilience to disasters for cultural resource properties.
When we last spoke, it was right after the
National Museum fire in Brazil. At the time,
you hoped the incident might serve as a
watershed moment of sorts to changing the
global problem of historic building fires.
Have you seen any positive change?
I've seen some positive change, but you have to
remember that this is a long-term proposition.
Fire protection methods and technologies progress

rapidly, but shaping the priorities of people with
limited resources takes much longer. I've been told
by colleagues that various fire protection-focused
seminars for museum and historic building managers have been more enthusiastically attended since
the occurrence of that incident. And programs like
this have been shown to significantly shift the opinions and priorities of attendees. But taking actions
based on those shifts in mindsets can take time. The
most recent incidents in Brazil and France show us
that the fire problem won't go away on its own. The
motivation for protecting our treasures from these
ever-looming threats needs to remain strong.

What challenges remain?
We all need to remain vigilant against the potential for these tragic losses. We cannot become
complacent against the fire threat, which is
constant. We all have scarce resources, and using
those resources to protect against fire needs to be
a community value before the fire problem occurs.
It does no good to do a lot of hand-wringing and
introspection after the fire. We need to implement
protection programs before they need to function.
A big problem is that we don't usually hear about
the situations where the program works effectively and the big fire is avoided. A successful fire
protection program is rarely big news.
Can you give a specific example of a historic
building in which modern fire protection
measures were added?
My experience is focused in the US market, where
there are quite a few examples of this. It seems
that the federal government and various local
governments have embraced the need to provide
automatic fire suppression systems to protect
cultural assets. The National Park Service, for
example, has mandated sprinkler or other automatic suppression system protection for many
historic buildings when those buildings are modified, and in other cases has used fire protection
as a reason to initiate projects. There are many
such projects in their system currently. So that's
an example of an organization that recognizes the
need to provide the protection.
What's your hope for the future?
My hope for the future is that people will recognize that the fire hazard to cultural resource
properties is real, and that these assets are
important connections to our past that must be
protected. And I hope that they use that recognition to provide money and resources to adequately
protect them for generations to come.

54 | NFPA JOURNAL * S E P T E M B E R / O C T O B E R 2 0 2 0

Perspectives 09.20 V2 DCS FINAL.indd 54

8/26/20 1:56 PM

http://nfpa.org/perspectives http://nfpa.org/perspectives

NFPA Journal - September/October 2020

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of NFPA Journal - September/October 2020