Only 22 Boston establishments have installed fire sprinklers since the state passed a law requiring them in nightclubs and taverns, a response that has some lawmakers worried that not enough has been done to prevent another tragedy like the Rhode Island nightclub fire in 2003 that killed 100 people.
Of the 283 bars and nightclubs in the city that Boston fire officials initially determined fell under the state's 2004 sprinkler law, 109 have since earned waivers by finding ways around the sprinkler requirement, and 28 others are poised to get the exemptions, a Globe review has found.
Another 85 waited until the last minute to take concrete steps toward installing sprinklers and received extensions of 30 to 60 days beyond last week's installation deadline.
The city's track record reflects what lawmakers and representatives in the entertainment industry say has been widespread confusion about the law, shifting interpretations among local authorities, a lack of penalties for noncompliance, and a variety of exemptions that are being heavily exploited by businesses. There al so is no central authority in the state designated to monitor progress, so officials do not know how well the law is working statewide.
The situation has left some lawmakers frustrated that more sprinklers have not been installed four years after The Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, R.I. A key legislator on the law, Brian P. Lees, said the widespread use of extensions and waivers runs counter to legislators' intent when they passed the Massachusetts law.
"All I can tell you is I did my best to make sure there was plenty of time so everyone would have the opportunity to get it done," said Lees, a former state senator who is now a Superior Court clerk magistrate. "They should be there."
Representative Ruth Balser, Democrat of Newton, said that if too many establishments are finding ways to skirt the law, it should be amended.
"I appreciate there are expenses and businesses are under economic pressure, but the bottom line is there are never multiple fatalities when buildings have automatic sprinkler systems," said Balser, who has sponsored a bill pending in the Legislature that would require sprinklers in all commercial buildings larger than 7,500 square feet. "Every time I read about deaths from fire, I'm sick. We just can't put cost above the cost of a human life."
In Massachusetts, the Fire Safety Act of 2004 required that sprinkler systems be installed by last Thursday in all nightclubs, dance halls, discotheques, bars, or other venues "for entertainment purposes" with capacities of 100 people or more.
But the law did not specify capacity as of a certain date, giving bars the opportunity to change their legal occupancies to get around the law. And it didn't prohibit splitting venues in half, so that each half has a capacity below the 100-person threshold, exempting the venues from the law. For example, James's Gate Restaurant & Pub in Jamaica Plain, which had a total capacity of 169 people, now has a bar side and a restaurant side with the capacities of each below 100.
The law exempted restaurants, but did not define restaurant - an establishment with a certain ratio of food-to-liquor revenue, for example - so many establishments successfully avoided the requirement by arguing that they are restaurants.
The law did not differentiate between commercial venues and private ones, such as a Knights of Columbus hall that is rented out for concerts and events. So, many establishments negotiated waivers by saying they would not sell tickets to the public.
If the establishments did not obtain waivers, the law required owners to submit contracts and letters of intent by May 2006 showing they were in the process of installing sprinklers and would be finished by last week's deadline. But it did not provide for any penalty if they did not, so many put off installation until the last minute, hoping for a reprieve or relying on an extension if they didn't get one.
Finally, the law left it up to local fire officials in individual communities to determine which establishments were covered by the law, whether to hand out exemptions or extensions, and to make sure operators followed through on the work.
Bar industry representatives say the system has led to uneven application of the law.
"These guys talk to each other all the time: 'You've got a menu, I've got a menu, you've got a chef, I've got a chef, you've got a juke box, I've got a juke box, I have to get sprinklered and you don't?' " said Terence F. Connaughton, executive director of the Massachusetts Licensed Beverage Association, which represents 475 establishments statewide that serve alcoholic beverages.
"This has never been about trying not to do the right thing for fire safety at all," he said. "This has always been about confusion and lack of detail in the law."
State Fire Marshal Stephen Coan concedes there have been problems with consistent enforcement at the local level. He said a state appeals board has issued decisions on certain venues that outline what constitutes a private club or restaurant that should be exempt from the law. But he said he is not sure how many fire chiefs used those decisions to guide their enforcement.
The Globe review found that 19 Boston establishments received waivers after they dropped their capacities below the 100-person threshold. Waivers were given to 42 venues that convinced authorities they are restaurants, and 11 private clubs. Another 28 establishments were exempted because they argued successfully that they are community centers, churches, or other venues unlikely to host raucous events.
Extensions were granted to 26 private clubs that are likely to receive waivers and two other establishments changing their legal capacities, fire officials say. Officials gave 85 bars another 30 to 60 days to install sprinklers.
If all the establishments granted extensions to install systems follow through, only 107 establishments in the city will have installed sprinklers because of the law, the Globe review found. "Those properties that are supposed to be sprinklered will be sprinklered," said Boston Fire District Chief Dennis Keeley, who is in charge of enforcement efforts under the law.
The sprinkler law, whose passage was celebrated Nov. 15, 2004, with a public signing ceremony on Beacon Hill, is a watered-down version of what was first proposed by a task force convened by Governor Mitt Romney after The Station fire. The original bill would have required bars and nightclubs that hold 50 or more people to install sprinklers and would have required them to do so almost immediately. It was eventually amended.
Lees, who now said he is surprised by the widespread extensions and waivers, was the legislator responsible for tabling the original bill and giving opponents time to lobby for the weakened version.
"I felt very strongly it was a huge financial burden for a number of folks in the Commonwealth and so we had to extend the time," he said.
"In my mind this is a failure of the restaurant association or the beverage association for not being totally on top of this for their members," Lees said. "I know we bent over backwards to make sure there was time and that small bars and restaurants wouldn't be affected."
Donovan Slack can be reached at dslack@globe.com.
