PROPUESTA 1

Fire Certificate of

Historic Building

Dr Anna Kociołek-Pęksa

State School of Fire Services

Warsaw

PROPUESTA 1

Certificate Grounds

• Fire Protection Act does not differentiate principles of rescue operation at historic and other premises.

• Practice and experience prove that fire and rescueoperations at historic buildings require specific preparation and training of firefighters.

• In course of a fire and rescue operation specific conditions, historic and artistic characteristics of an object and its collections should be taken into consideration. That requires individualized approach, prior familiarizing and training exercises on the place

PROPUESTA 1

Firefighters in fire and rescue operations shall:

- pay particular attention to historic monuments;

- cooperate with the unit command and conservation authorities to provide basic emergency maintenance and

conservation;

- know what and how is to be saved;

- be familiar with the object, its topography, historical importance and collection value.

Efficient cooperation requires immediate decision taking -there is no time for deliberation, thus the Certificate provides for better more effective, optimal fire extinguishing in historical objects.

PROPUESTA 1

Current regulation on fire detection covers automatic systems offire detection and transmission, fire alarm reception and defective

signal detector systems and refers to buildings listed in Article 28.1 of the Ordinance on Buildings, Construction Objects and Sites Fire Protection of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration of

7 June 2010.

There are objects particularly important for culture and functioning of the State that may pose problem for emergency units.

Only high standard fire monitoring system warrants immediate extinguishing and rescue operation by the firefighters

PROPUESTA 1

Regulations on fire protection in historical objects:

1.Fire Protection Act of 24 August 1991

2.Building Law of 7 July 1994

3.Ordinance of the Ministry of Infrastructure on technical requirements for buildings and their localization of 12 April

2002

4.Ordinance of the Minister of Culture on the protection of the collections in museums in case of fire, theft and other danger or loss or in case of collection evacuation refers to museum buildings and other that collect works of art of 15

October 2003

PROPUESTA 1

Regulations on fire protection in historical objects – cont.

5. Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on fire protection of buildings, other construction objects and sites from16 June 2003

6. Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on firefighting water supply and fireroads

of 16 June 2003

7. Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on assessment construction design conformity with fire safety rules of 16 June 2003

PROPUESTA 1

Types of regulations regarding historical objects

I.Permanently binding – regulations regarding requirements for technical equipment of the object

II.Conditionally binding - more strict construction safety regulations regarding evacuation and construction material

standards such as;

• fire resistance and combustibility;

• escape routes construction and keeping them smoke free

PROPUESTA 1

Advantageous legal situation of historical real estates allowing for other than regulatory insurance coverage

Adjustable regulations:

1) Articles 14 and 15 of Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on fire protection of

buildings, other construction objects and sites of 16 June 2003 regarding outside hydrants

2) Article 23.1 of the same Ordinance regarding permanent fire extinguishers, fixed on the premises,

containing fire extinguishing medium and automatically activated in early stage in the following places :

PROPUESTA 1

a) Archives designated by the State Archives General Director

b) Museums and historical buildings, designated by General Conservator of Monuments in consultation with Chief

Commendant of the State Fire Service and in other listed objects specified by use and height

3. Article 24 points 1, 14 and 21 of the mentioned Ordinance require fire alarm system including fire alarm signalling

devices for automatic detection and alarming in museums, historical buildings, designated by General Conservator of Monuments in consultation with Chief Commandant of the State Fire Service; in libraries of whose collections in whole or in part form the national

library resource.

PROPUESTA 1

4. Article 3 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior and Administration on firefighting water supply and fireroads of 16 June 2003 requires the hard surface road enabling all

seasons access to a building for firefighter vehicles.

5. Articles 1 and 2 of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Infrastructure on technical requirements for buildings and their localization of 12th of April 2002 provide for meeting the requirements for their rebuilding and change of use pursuant to recomendationd of technical expertise of a

respective R&D unit, construction or fire protection authorities, as agreed with respective regional Commandant

of the State Fire Service

PROPUESTA 1

CONCLUSION:

Favourable alternative solutions providing for meeting the fire protection obligations in the referred to regulations

result from the following facts:

1) statutory requirements do not refer to the existing objects

2) regulations provide for alternative solutions respecting specific local conditions

3)direct indication of historic nature of the object

! Use of alternative (other than required) fire protection results from stringent maintenance requirements!

PROPUESTA 1

IMPORTANT:

The referred to expertise regarding estate property registered in the Monuments Registry

and protected urban systems (e.g. Nowa Huta in Cracow) pursuant to the local land use plan after consultation with Provincial Heritage Conservator

Office

PROPUESTA 1

PROPUESTA 1

PROPUESTA 1

Provincial Heritage Conservator Office

under Polish Administration Law

-Is not a monument protection body

-Is one of the units of local government in a province

-Evaluates and consults local land use plan

-This evaluation is considered in administration law judgement and doctrine a measure of administrative

supervision of local government

(supervision criterion: legitimacy)

PROPUESTA 1

Coordination of Historical Monuments Protection Plans

- Plan validation procedure

-Cooperation within triad of: provincial heritage conservator, civil defence units, plan accomplisher

Heritage conservator of the province empowered by the local governor and acting pursuant to the Act on the protection

and guardianship of monuments, both in case of community or district plans, evaluates their conformity with the

following:

-regulation reguirements

-guidelances for drafting historic monuments protection plans in the province

PROPUESTA 1

Provincial Heritage Conservator Office

under Polish Administration Law

-Is not a monument protection body

-Is one of the units of local government in a province

-Evaluates and consults local land use plan

-This evaluation is considered in administration law judgement and doctrine a measure of administrative

supervision of local government

(supervision criterion: legitimacy)

PROPUESTA 1

Why NO for Monuments Protection Plans?

1. Too complex drafting and negotiating

2. Too many unprofessional subjects involved

3. Useless for actual fire and rescue operation

4. Ignore presence of precious movables of historic value thus not prioritize their rescue

5. Lack useful for firefighters information on methods, ways and tools for fire protection purposes

and

6.Lack information on applied fire protection systems or departures from binding regulations

PROPUESTA 1

CPOZ

Idea: certificate in place of monument protection plan

Forecasting local threats to monuments as starting point for CPOZ

Criterion: only professionals are involved

Statutory obliged bodies: firefighters and conservation units

Legal ground*: directive on CPOZ standard

*necessity to ammend Act on monuments protection

Certificate essentialia negoti: identification of deviations from monument fire protection legal requirements and the

adopted fire protection solutions

Certificate form: bilingual e-document

PROPUESTA 1

Fire Certificate content:

1. Dualistic definition of monument type – fire protection and conservation perspective

2. Indication of existing fire protection devices e.g. monitoring, SUG, SSP, DSO, HW, ODD,

3. Indication of departures from legal requirements on fire protection, e.g.: lack of dual escape routes, volume and

type of combustible material, their location

4. Specification of optimal access roads to a monument

5. Specification of extraordinary fire protection devices and materials indespensable for saving due to an object

unique characteristics.

PROPUESTA 1

6. Specification the object topography and construction with marked health and life hazardous areas and areas of

primary historic importance to be saved at the cost of less original ones

7. Specification of rescue priorities referring to historical movables in the object

8. Specification of particular areas people evacuation time estimate.

-Indication chances for complete evacuation prior total smoke

PROPUESTA 1

The Certifcate pilot project positive after effects:

Kick starting the European Internet System of Historic Monuments Fire Certificates

Subjects authorised to EIS data access:

EU emergency units + states and historic monuments protection and maintenance bodies

PROPUESTA 1

Objections:

Article 28.2 of the Act on the protection and guardianship of monuments:

Notwithstanding the obligation resulting from the guardianship of monuments specified in Article 5 the owner, or proprietor of the monument entered into the Inventory, orthe monument entered into the Province Monuments Inventory notifies the Province Inspector of Monuments ofthreat to the monument immediately after being informed of such threat;

Current status:

Not binding regulation as conflicting with the economic interest of the obligated party

Conclusion: monuments fire protection deterioration, monuments distruction

PROPUESTA 1

PROPUESTA 1

Example:

of fire protection non- standard solutions employed at Wrocław Centenial Hall buit in 1911- 1913

Problem 1 Classification:

Centenial Hall is 42 m high – a tall object. Had it been a standard high-rise the potential operational range for fire and rescue operation would have been calculated to the highest level. Here, the situation is specific: people are, the highest, on the balcony 12 m high. Thus, the assumed operating heigth reaches 12 m. Consequently, a compromise solution was agreed: the object was classified as medium-high. Still, water application was calculated as if for a high building

PROPUESTA 1

PROPUESTA 1

Problem 2: Non standard instalation of linear detecors in the main hall. In a standard object they are situated up to 12 m as this is the maximum level for people presence. Here, however detectors are also located much higher what results from the specific construction. Over a thousand point detectors and thirty inear ones have been installed in the main hall, lobbies and other public areas.

Problem 3: Too narrow staircase of the main hall. For evacuation purposes the staircase was to be rebuilt but the Conservator vetoed the idea and the security system designers had to provide for the objection. Obligatory sprinklers instalation was also given up. That however, was simple as in objects built before 1994 sprinklers are not mandatory

PROPUESTA 1

Problem 4: Designers of the system adopted the idea of total protection assuming the presence of fire detectors in all public areas. Other areas are monitored by the staff who, use the manual alarm devices located on the alarm roads. The installed signalling system will initiate I and II degree alarms. The first is diagnostic, the second alarms a respective firefighters unit and initiates the fire rescue operations

The detection system shuts the fire walls and initiaties smoke screening, activates smoke control system, opens doors for aeration, initiates staircases ventilation, brings elevators to level 0.

PROPUESTA 1

PROPUESTA 1

Problem 5: efficient evacuation

Lobbies – the evacuation challenge –are used for accompanying events e.g. exebitions. Evacuation route from the balcony usually goes through lobbies. Thus 32 smoke flops of 64 m2 total area were installed in the main lobby, while 60 m2 is the result of ventilation analysis required area.

The main lobby smoke analysis conclusion is to divide the system (32 smoke flops covering 62 m2) into 8 smoke zones. That shall allow to complete evacuation prior total/full smoke shall appear.

PROPUESTA 1

CPOZ- for example

• Object type (sacral object, museum)

• Building material that the object is made of

• Power and water supply to the object

• Access roads to the object

• Access time for rescue and extinguishing services

• Object's historic value category

• Collections of art (museum, sacral, historic, etc.)

• Object's emotional value

• As well as other elements, such as Monument Conservator's or Public Administration

• authorities' requirements

PROPUESTA 1

ANNAKOCIOLEK.PEKSA@GMAIL.COM

THANK YOU