1. Unit VIII Case Study
Unit VIII Case Study
Station Nightclub Fire NIST Investigation
Nick Magoteaux
Columbia Southern University
FIR 2302, Principals of Fire and Emergency Services Safety and Survival
Professor C. Carey
July 8, 2015

2. Unit VIII Case Study
The Scenario: A fire occurred on the night of Feb. 20, 2003, in The Station nightclub at
211 Cowesett Avenue, West Warwick, Rhode Island. A band that was on the platform that night,
during its performance, used pyrotechnics that ignited polyurethane foam insulation lining the
walls and ceiling of the platform. The fire spread quickly along the walls and ceiling area over
the dance floor. Smoke was visible in the exit doorways in a little more than one minute, and
flames were observed breaking through a portion of the roof in less than five minutes. Egress
from the nightclub, which was not equipped with sprinklers, was hampered by crowding at the
main entrance to the building. One hundred people lost their lives in the fire.
Major issues: The fire inspector failed to perform his due diligence before he approved
the polyurethane foam insulation for use. The use of pyrotechnics should not have been allowed
by the fire inspector with the untested foam insulation lining the walls. The building was
possibly overcrowded the night of the show. Fire inspections of the business were done, but no
re-inspections were done to ensure violations had been corrected. Exits were not properly lit and
some exits were blocked.
Potential solutions: The fire inspector should have done his research on the polyurethane
foam insulation before allowing it to be used in the nightclub. If the inspector did not have the
knowledge base to enforce that code, he should have called in assistance from the state fire
marshal. The use of pyrotechnics should be banned from use in small nightclub spaces. The fire
department should have had an inspector at the club the night of the show to ensure
overcrowding would not be an issue. Re-inspections should be done to ensure that the violations
noted are corrected. If an inspector would have been there on that night and re-inspections were
performed, exit lighting and blocked exits would not have been an issue.
Recommendations: “The use of untreated polyurethane foam was and continues to be a
violation of NFPA and International Code Council (ICC) model codes as well as the regulations
in use in Rhode Island at the time of the fire” (Tidwell, 2012). The fire inspector should have
been knowledgeable enough to know that the polyurethane foam insulation was in violation of
Rhode Island fire code. If he wasn’t knowledgeable enough to know this, he should have reached
out to a more knowledgeable source to help him preform the inspection. Personally, as a fire
prevention manager, I call the state fire marshal frequently for advice and guidance on any issue
I am not clear on. The fire prevention bureau knew this concert was going to be larger in size and
could have had an inspector on hand to count people to ensure that occupancy capacity was not
being violated. “Reinspection of buildings should also include periodic inspection” (Robertson,
2010, p. 71).

3. Unit VIII Case Study
References
Tidwell, J. (2012). The Station Nightclub Fire: Revisiting the Lessons. Retrieved from
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-165/issue-1/features/station-nightclub-fire-
revisiting-lessons-full.html
Robertson, J. C. (2010). Introduction to fire prevention (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.