Campus Firewatch

December 2000 Issue

©2000 Campus Firewatch

Campus Firesafety Forum II

The following is second of a two-part story on the Campus Fire Safety
Forum that was held at the NFPA Fall Education Conference in Orlando,
Florida. These are summaries of the presentations that were given at the
Forum.. Part One was in the November issue of Campus Firewatch.

The Impact of an Ordinance

Rich Barr

In Lawrence, Kansas, there had been a long road leading up to the
implementation of a mandatory sprinkler ordinance (see a related story
in the September, 2000 issue of Campus Firewatch). Fire Marshal Rich
Barr from the Lawrence-Douglas County Fire and Rescue Department
outlined the impact of the ordinance and what some of the "fallout" was
for the Greek community.

The Lawrence-Douglas County Fire and Rescue Department had responded to
several fires in Greek houses, one in 1976 and another in 1987, that
helped create a catalyst for trying to implement legislation. They put
together a package that illustrated the dangers that had been found in
the Greek occupancies over the year.

For example, over the years there had been 25 fires. Also, some of the
dangers that had been identified were how the occupants would customize
their rooms. They would do their own wiring and build lofts-"privatize
their dwelling unit, so to speak," said Barr. In 1987, they even found
one student in the basement, excavating a space that was going to become
his room!

The department reviewed statistics such as fire loss and violations for
congregate residences. Over a four-year period from 1984 to 1988 and
they found that approximately a half a million dollars in fire damage
had occurred in these occupancies. Furthermore, they were finding an
average of 14 violations per building, as opposed to approximately five
for hotels and motels, and about one for apartments. The risk was
clearly in the congregate residences, and the decision was made to have
the program apply to [all]{.underline} congregate residences, not just
the Greek houses.

According to Barr, one of the important factors in successfully
implementing a program is to be able to take advantage of the teachable
moment. "As I see it, people who are trying to advocate change are like
surfers waiting for the big wave. You get out there, you have to be
ready to go, you have to be ready to paddle. If you are not ready to
paddle when the big wave comes along, you're not going to ride it in."
John Kingdon originally stated this, and Barr felt that it aptly
illustrated the need to be ready to move at the right time.

It was also important to decide what type of approach you are going to
take towards trying to implement change. "The two approaches are to be
creative and comprehensive versus incremental," said Barr. Each has
distinct advantages and disadvantages.

By using a creative and comprehensive approach, you are able to take
advantage of a crisis or an incident, such as a serious fire. People are
more receptive to your message, and time is of the essence when you are
using this approach.

If you are using an incremental approach, you should plan to spread out
your efforts over time. Changes that occur are going to be due to
providing information and educating people. Compromises are likely when
using this tactic.

The program that they were initiating with the Greeks did not apply to
apartment buildings. The reasoning for this was that they were able to
demonstrate, through their fire history, that the congregate residences
presented a greater fire risk than did the apartment occupancies.

In 1989, the fire department started working with the various Greek
corporation boards (corp boards) in an effort to educate them on the
fire dangers in the buildings and to help raise them up to a basic level
of fire safety. This included items such as housekeeping, improved
compartmentation and similar fire safety features and practices.
However, the fire department kept reminding the corp boards that the
ultimate goal was to sprinkler the buildings and that the fire
department would keep working towards this goal.

They also stepped up the inspection program in the fraternities and
sororities and had a "zero tolerance" policy for violations. If they
found serious violations, a firewatch would be implemented, the
occupants would be given 24 hours to make the necessary repairs and a
notice to appear would be issued to the person in charge of the
building.

There were several things that the fire department did to help
facilitate the passage of the ordinance. One was putting all of the
commissioners through a sprinkler trailer. By doing so, they were able
to see, firsthand, how effective a sprinkler system is in suppressing a
trash can fire.

Barr summarized his presentation by pointing out that time is of the
essence if a crisis, such as a catastrophic or tragic fire, is the
impetus of the policy. Otherwise, it is best to use the incremental
approach to try to make the change. He added:

-   Be sure to define the scope and extent of the policy

-   Research the effects the policy will have on other problems or
    issues

-   Develop coalitions that support the policy.

You can view or download Major Barr's presentation from the RESOURCE
page of the Campus Firewatch website.

# Greek Commitment

The Kappa Alpha Theta women's fraternity has chapters on 123 campuses
with 175,000 alumnae and undergraduate members. Jeff Rinck, the
assistant director for administration for Kappa Alpha Theta provided an
overview on this fraternity's efforts to install sprinklers in all
chapters, nationwide.

In the year 2000, the fraternity's Facility Corporation District
Directors attended the North American Interfraternity Conference
National Housing and Risk Management Conference. Chapel Hill Fire Chief
Dan Jones spoke at this conference about the tragic fire that struck his
community on Mother's Day in 1996. He discussed how a sprinkler system
would have saved the lives of the five men and women that were killed in
the fire, and this impressed the committee.

Because of this program, the committee proposed that all Kappa Alpha
Theta facilities should have a sprinkler system installed by the end of
summer, 2002. The fraternity's Grand Council unanimously approved this
mandate.

However, the real work was now beginning, according to Rinck. The first
hurdle was to get the word out to the volunteers in Kappa Alpha Theta.
The fraternity is divided into three tiers, comprising of national,
regional and chapters. Each chapter is overseen by a Facility
Corporation Board, which is comprised of volunteers. There are 60
facilities that would fall under this mandate. There was one saving
grace, however-about 40% of the facilities already had sprinkler systems
installed in them!

Rinck said that they had identified three challenges that had to be
overcome in making the mandate a reality:

-   Selling the mandate

-   Financing the mandate

-   Realizing the mandate

In selling the mandate, two actions were undertaken. The first was to
educate the volunteers, the undergraduate members and the parents of the
undergraduates about the value of sprinkler systems in protecting the
occupants and the property of the facilities.

A packet of information was sent to the Facility Corporation Presidents
with information about the value of sprinkler systems and the video
*Ready to Respond* that was produced by the University of Maryland. A
sample fundraising letter was also included to help the chapters in
raising funds to support this endeavor.

Kappa Alpha Theta holds nine District Leadership Conferences each year
that are attended by each chapter president as well as other officers.
This was an opportunity to educate the undergraduates on the importance
of fire safety and sprinklers. Each chapter was given a copy of the
video *Get Out and Stay Alive*, which is targeted at college-age
students, as well as other educational material.

The parents were the third group that was provided with fire safety
information in an effort to develop support for the mandate. A letter
was sent to the parents from the Grand Council telling them about the
work that was being done in this area. The parents also receive a copy
of the *Kappa Alpha Theta Magazine*, which had an article on the new
sprinkler program. This magazine was distributed not only to the
parents, but to each of the undergraduate members and the volunteers as
well.

Education was only one component. Providing an incentive and the
financial ability to install the sprinkler systems was as equally
important. The national organization is offering financing to support
the projects, which is being done through loans that have no interest in
the first year and then only 7% each year for the length of the loan.
The chapters can use these funds for not only the sprinkler systems, but
to also help consolidate debt and do other needed projects.

The insurance carrier CGU Insurance and their agent, M-J Insurance, are
offering the chapters an incentive through insurance reductions. Any
facility with a fully operational sprinkler system will received a 15%
reduction in property insurance and the deductible for property damage
resulting from system failure or discharge will be waived. The videos
that were used in the educational phase of the program were provided by
M-J Insurance.

As an organization, providing the funding to the chapters was important.
However, obtaining the funds to make this a reality was a major hurdle.
The national headquarters staff discussed the various options available
to it.

Possibilities included using internal funds, such as operating surplus,
conducting fund raising or requesting funds from the fraternity's
Foundation. Each had significant factors influencing whether they would
be viable options.

For example, while using operating surplus funds would be the easiest
solution, this would reduce the amount of money available for other
projects and there would be a loss of interest income to consider. Fund
raising would be an avenue that would place the least financial burden
on the organization. However, the fraternity does not have a lot of
expertise as fundraisers. Furthermore, since many people donate only
once a year, the amount of money available from donations for other
projects would be reduced.

Requesting funds from the fraternity's Foundation was initially thought
to be a very practical solution. However, because of the tax code
restrictions on the Foundation, a sprinkler retrofit project would not
fall within the educational and charitable cause requirements that the
Foundation must use in disbursing its funds. However, Rinck pointed out
that this restriction might be unique only to the Kappa Alpha Theta
Foundation and not necessarily universally true for other organizations.

Since there were no options internally, the next step was to look
towards funding sources outside of the fraternity. A commercial bank
loan was the easiest route, but one that would result in high interest
fees being charged because of the short-term nature of the loan.

A bond offering would entail lower interest terms because it would be
long term. However, it would require a lot of documentation and higher
upfront fees. Kappa Alpha Theta had hoped to offer tax-free bonds
because they are a non-profit organization. However, to do so they would
have to be licensed in all 50 states and Canada, which would require a
significant amount of work (and costs) to accomplish this.

The final alternative that was considered was that of a taxable draw
note. This is a form of a taxable bond issue with some advantages over a
typical bond issue.

One was that the money could be drawn out over a long period and only as
needed. Perhaps more importantly is that the interest only accrues on
the money that has been drawn out. There are no pre-payment penalties
and it has a low interest rate. While the initial fees may be higher,
the overall advantages of a taxable draw note made it the vehicle of
choice for providing funding.

Now that the national headquarters had addressed the issues of educating
the chapters, providing incentives and financing, the final step was, as
Rinck called it, "Realizing the Mandate."

To accomplish this they attempted to do some of the initial work for the
chapters to help "streamline" the process. Based on the experience of
working with Grinnell Corporation on installing sprinklers in two of the
fraternity's facilities, they signed a contract with Grinnell to make
them the national account. "This only means that each facility must get
a bid from Grinnell, not that they must use them," said Rinck. "They are
free to use whomever they choose." By developing this relationship with
Grinnell they are hoping to obtain "national account pricing and
corporate oversight of each job," continued Rinck.

You can view or download Jeff Rinck's presentation from the RESOURCE
page of the Campus Firewatch website.

**Tragic Fire**

Randy Hormann is an active voice in campus fire safety. Through his
listserv for the International Association of Campus Fire Safety
Officers, he has provided a forum for the exchange of information among
people involved in providing campus fire safety.

Unfortunately, just before he traveled to Orlando to speak at Forum II,
a serious fire struck at one of the Greek houses at Miami University in
Oxford, Ohio. Randy was able to provide a very timely and informative
account of the fire based on his inspection of the scene immediately
following the fire.

See the November issue of Campus Firewatch for more information about
this fire.

# Great Escape-On Campus

Following his presentation on the fire, Randy provided an excellent
overview on the new program that they had implemented at the University
of Miami this fall. Using the NFPA's Great Escape program, he adapted it
to use in training students in the dormitories at Miami University.

The Great Escape is a theme that the NFPA has been using for several
years to help promote awareness of the importance of knowing how to get
out of a fire. The focus of the NFPA program is on residences, but
Hormann felt that there were applications for the college environment,
and so the Great Escape On Campus was launched.

The objective of the training program was to familiarize the students
with the type of conditions that they would encounter in a real fire.
The challenge was to do it in as realistic a manner as possible, yet
still provide them with a valuable learning experience. A dormitory
corridor was selected as the optimal location for providing this
training.

According to Hormann, the following equipment was needed:

***[Equipment required:]{.underline}***

-   (One) - Smoke Machine or device able to produce a non-toxic safe fog
    (smoke) type of product.

-   (Three) -- Exhaust type fans (industrial or fire fighting quality)
    to remove the smoke from the hallway in a timely manner.

-   (Several) -- Towels large enough to cover the bottom parts of all
    doorways of the area used for the smoke drill.

-   (Four) -- Extension cords large enough to power all three fans and
    the smoke machine.

-   (One) -- Laptop computer and projector or device capable of
    presenting a lecture based program to the students and staff before
    doing through the program.

-   (One) - VCR player, and projector or television large enough to view
    the "Get Out and Stay Alive" video.

-   (One) -- Screen (if not provided) at your lecture location to view
    the video and the lecture presentation.

-   (One) -- Room large enough to present a lecture comfortably to all
    who attend.

-   (One) -- Corridor or part of the building capable of putting on the
    Great Escape program.

-   (Several) -- People to assist in putting on the program, but more
    importantly to be in the corridor or hallways where you present the
    program to make sure that if some one gets claustrophobic,
    disoriented, scared, lost or needs assistance someone is right there
    to help them out.

One of the first steps in getting the site ready was to remove all
obstructions from the corridor. Since the participant's vision had to be
obscured sufficiently to make it a challenging exercise, this also meant
that there was the possibility of injury if they should encounter any
obstructions.

Another step was to put towels at the base of each of the room doors to
avoid any smoke migration into the rooms. This would reduce the amount
of time required to clear the atmosphere following the exercise.

By using a smoke generator similar to that used by theaters or fire
departments, it was possible to fill a corridor with enough smoke that
obscured the participant's vision. It was also important to ensure that
the smoke was not toxic in any manner.

The student's were checked into a large lecture hall and provided with a
briefing on the exercise as well as some basic fire safety information.
During the lecture, staff members were in the process of filling the
corridor with smoke from the smoke generator.

The students were then broken into small groups and brought up to the
smoke-filled corridor. They were given final instructions, as well as
told what to do in the event that they should have some problems during
the exercise. They then opened the door and started down the hall on
their hands and knees to the other end.

Once they emerged from the corridor, the students were brought back
together to discuss the experience and what they learned. The reaction
from the students was a positive one.

Once the exercise is completed, the smoke was then removed from the
corridor in about 30 minutes. From start to finish, the entire exercise
took about 2 hours.

Hormann finished his presentation with the following suggestions to make
similar programs a success, based on his experience:

-   Administration support for the program.

-   Make sure the students know about the program -- talk about the fun
    and success.

-   NO surprises. Outline the whole program in detail during your
    lecture.

-   Student cooperation is imperative.

-   The residence hall staff makes an excellent resource.

-   Put forth the effort to make it an excellent program. Don't waste
    their time and yours.

CHRIS-ITALICIZE

Randall Hormann can be reached at rmanrl@muohio.edu

An article by Randy Hormann about the Great Escape-On Campus was
published in the September issue of Campus Firewatch

The following are the websites of organizations that were referenced in
the two-part article on Campus Fire Safety Forum II

Campus Firewatch
[www.campus-firewatch.com](http://www.campus-firewatch.com/)

NFPA [www.nfpa.org](http://www.nfpa.org/)

USFA [www.usfa.fema.gov](http://www.usfa.fema.gov/)

CSHEMA [www.cshema.org](http://www.cshema.org/)

CGU Insurance [www.cguusa.com](http://www.cguusa.com/)

Grinnell [www.grinnell.com](http://www.grinnell.com/)

Kappa Alpha Theta
[www.kappaalphatheta.org](http://www.kappaalphatheta.org/)

Lawrence-Douglas County Fire and Medical Department
[www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/citygovt/fire_medical/](http://www.ci.lawrence.ks.us/citygovt/fire_medical/)

M-J Insurance [www.mjinsurance.com](http://www.mjinsurance.com/)

Miami University [www.muohio.edu](http://www.muohio.edu/)

National Fire Sprinkler Association [www.nfsa.org](http://www.nfsa.org/)

New Jersey State Fire Marshal <http://www.state.nj.us/dca/dfs/>

North America Interfraternity Conference
[www.nicindy.org](http://www.nicindy.org/)

University of Maryland [www.umd.edu](http://www.umd.edu/)

HISTORY OF THE NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR'S TASK FORCE on CAMPUS FIRE
SAFETY

Paul D. Martin

Fire Protection Specialist

NYS Office of Fire Prevention and Control

As colleges, universities and governments across the nation learned of
the details of the tragic Boland Hall fire at Seton Hall University in
early 2000, everyone expressed the same reaction \-- "what if it had
happened here?" Sprinklers, or more aptly the lack of sprinklers, became
a recurring theme during the post-incident analysis. While several
states quickly began to evaluate and react to the sprinkler issue,
George E. Pataki, the Governor of New York State, decided to take a more
far-reaching approach by commissioning a study that would report on all
aspects of fire safety in colleges in his state.

With Executive Order #103, he created the "Task Force on Campus Fire
Safety". The Task Force consisted of officials and student
representatives from both public and independent colleges and
universities, leaders of the government agency that constructs many
college residential facilities, along with fire service officials.

The Task Force was specifically charged to review the following issues
for public and private colleges and universities in New York State:

1\. The adequacy of building and fire codes as applied to student
residence halls

> 2\. The record of compliance by colleges and universities with fire
> safety laws and code requirements applicable to student residence
> halls.

3\. Fire safety policies and procedures with respect to student
residence halls, including student orientation, fire drills, evacuations
and staff training.

> 4\. Statutory and college disciplinary penalties for false alarms,
> misuse of fire safety equipment and setting of fires in student
> residence halls
>
> 5\. The extent and adequacy of fire suppression and detection systems,
> including but not limited to sprinklers and smoke detectors, in
> student residence halls.
>
> 6\. The potential costs associated with any recommended upgrades of
> fire suppression and detection systems or related programs in student
> residence halls.

7\. Any other matters relating to fire safety as the Governor may
direct.

In addition, the Task Force was directed to develop a comprehensive
statewide Campus Fire Safety Plan. The Plan includes changes in laws,
regulations, policies and practices relating to fire safety in residence
halls at public and independent colleges and universities throughout New
York State.

Throughout the spring and into the early summer of 2000, the Task Force
held meetings, public forums and work sessions as it went about its
business. One of the first issues to be addressed involved the question,
"What is the status of fire safety on campuses today?" The job of
answering this question fell to the state Office of Fire Prevention and
Control, which created a comprehensive survey to be completed by the
campuses throughout the State. The results of this survey began to paint
a picture of fire safety on New York's campuses. A picture that
ultimately exposed that the level of fire safety on campuses needed to
be raised. With this information in hand, the Task Force was able to
start evaluating where the holes existed and chart a course of suggested
actions to fill them.

The first charge the Task Force considered was the extent and adequacy
of existing building codes regarding college residential structures. The
Task Force came to the conclusion that all newly constructed college
residential buildings should have complete sprinkler coverage along with
fully integrated fire/smoke detection systems regardless of size,
construction type or design style.

The Task Force went on to propose a ten year program to upgrade fire and
smoke detection systems in all existing residential buildings as well as
to suggest that building codes be modified to require installation of a
complete sprinkler system upon renovation.

One of the most glaring issues the Task Force found was an exemption
from mandatory annual fire inspections for colleges located in the large
metropolitan cities in the state. State Education Law requires
institutes throughout the state to be inspected annually for fire
hazards, while excluding those in the major cities. The Task Force found
no logical reason for this exemption and quickly decided to advocate it
be removed from law. The members of the Task Force also felt that the
inspection process as it currently exists; allowing a college to
basically choose its inspector, simply report the findings of the
inspection to the State Education Department and not be subject to any
follow-up or enforcement practices should be changed. It felt that a
single entity should be charged with such inspection and enforcement
responsibility. In its final report, the Task Force recommended that the
State Office of Fire Prevention and Control (New York's equivalent of a
state fire marshal's office) be statutorily designated as the government
agency with responsibility and authority for fire inspections at all
colleges and universities in the state.

During the course of its work, the Task Force linked together several of
its concerns - student fire safety education, housing policies and
procedures and residential staff training. Education and training of
student and campus staff is critical in helping to ensure a fire safe
environment exists. Orientation programs for students varied widely in
content and message while at the same time those individuals providing
this life safety message may not have been properly trained themselves.
Task Force members felt that the best way to address these issues was
through development of guidelines and models, with direction to the
colleges that programs at least equal to these minimums must be
initiated. The effort to address these concerns lead to another key
suggestion from the Task Force, the creation of a Campus Fire Safety
Advisory Board. This Board's mission would be to create these models and
guidelines. Representatives from the various disciplines with interest
or responsibility for fire safety on campuses, along with student
advisors, would be invited to serve on the Board.

Through the survey that was conducted by the Office of Fire of Fire
Prevention and Control, it became apparent that the inspection, testing
and maintenance of fire detection and suppression systems per NFPA
standards were not taking place. Questions regarding the quality of
these processes were also expressed. It was not surprising to find
campus employees who had received a cursory "on-the-job" orientation
conducting the inspection and testing on fire protection devices. At the
same time, other campuses had programs that relied on highly trained or
experienced employees or had contracted this type of work out. This
again confirmed that there were no standards in place to ensure the
competency of people working on fire safety systems. The Task Force
followed the same path it had before -- recommending the creation of
standards that will make sure those individuals who have the task of
testing, inspecting or maintaining fire protection systems possess the
knowledge and skill to do so properly.

The Executive Order also directed the Task Force to evaluate penalties
for false alarms, tampering with fire safety equipment and setting
fires. During the public forum a recurring message was voiced to the
Task Force -- there is a widespread problem on campuses of tampering
with fire protection equipment, and "why isn't it a crime?" A closer
look revealed that while false alarms and setting fires have long been
recognized as crimes, tampering with fire safety equipment was only
specifically addressed as a violation of the fire and building code. It
did not take much deliberation for the Task Force to come to conclude
the Penal Law should be amended to make the intentional tampering with
fire safety equipment a crime.

Comments published in the media in the days following the public release
of the Task Force's report consistently hailed its recommendations. Many
of the articles asked why some of the proposals were not implemented
long ago. An editorial in the *Kingston Daily Freeman* said, "There is a
price to be paid for turning a blind eye. Students and families at Seton
Hall have paid that price. The lessons learned need not be exacted on
New Yorkers."

Governor Pataki took a big step toward meeting just such a challenge
when he created the Task Force. His bold order for a Comprehensive
Campus Fire Safety Plan has been filled.

A follow-up article is planned for a future issue of Campus Firewatch
that will cover the progress New York State makes as it heads toward
implementation of the Task Force's suggestions. In the meantime, the
final product of the Task Force's work, "The Report of the New York
State Governor's Task Force on Campus Fire Safety" can be downloaded
from the New York State Department of State's web page at
[www.dos.state.ny.us](http://www.dos.state.ny.us/).

From the Editor

Year in Review

What has happened this year in campus fire safety?

A lot-some good, some, unfortunately, tragic.

As we are going to press, Campus Firewatch has identified nine fires in
2000 that killed 15 people. It is unfortunate that it requires these
tragedies to serve as a catalyst for the legislation and changes to
occur. However, whatever the motivation, we should take advantage of
this heightened awareness to drive home the message on campus fire
safety. (More information on these fatal incidents is going to be
contained in the January issue.)

Because of these tragedies, we saw some of the most sweeping changes
made in fire safety. Within less than five months, major legislation was
enacted in New Jersey. This legislation requires that all dormitories
and Greek housing in the state be sprinklered within four years. This
was not just another unfounded mandate handed down by a state
legislature, either. Along with it came a fund of \$50,000,000 in the
form of low-interest or no-interest loans that the institutions can tap
into. At Campus Firesafety Forum II, New Jersey State Fire Marshal
George Miller reported that this fund was just about going to cover all
of the required installations.

No other legislation has ever been enacted so broadly and quickly that
will so dramatically change the level of fire safety. Within five months
of the tragic Seton Hall fire, New Jersey leaped into the forefront of
fire safety.

Along with the efforts in New Jersey, there were other pieces of
legislation put forward at both the state and federal levels. A number
of bills were introduced in the United States Congress. Unfortunately,
it would appear (as of this issue) that none of them was successful. It
is not clear what the prospect is for this type of legislation in the
next session of Congress.

On the state level, there were some gains. Besides New Jersey, Wisconsin
passed legislation requiring that sprinklers be retrofit into high-rise
dormitories. Furthermore, new dormitories will all be required to have
sprinkler systems installed in them.

Pennsylvania introduced legislation requiring sprinklers in all
dormitories and Greek housing. After passing the House with only one
dissenting vote, it moved to the Senate where it died in committee.
However, the State System of Higher Education mandated that all of its
dormitories be equipped with sprinkler systems.

In Massachusetts, Governor Celluci introduced supplemental legislation
to provide \$50 million in funding for sprinklers in state dormitories.
However, this never was approved or implemented. Studies were
commissioned in New York state and Pennsylvania to look at the present
level of fire protection at campuses in their states. (An article on the
New York task force appears in this issue of Campus Firewatch.)

Because of the heightened interest in campus fire safety, the National
Fire Protection Association and the United States Fire Administration
agreed to again sponsor Campus Fire Safety Forum. This landmark program
now in its second year, was again organized by Campus Firewatch and was
held in conjunction with the NFPA Fall Educational Conference in
Orlando, Florida. A new co-sponsor was welcomed this year-the Campus
Safety, Health and Environmental Managers Association (CSHEMA).

Forum II was held before a packed room of campus fire safety
professionals. The six presenters provided a wealth of information, and
the exchange and networking opportunities were invaluable according to
many of the participants. In addition, along with Forum II, the NFPA
Education Section sponsored a session that focused on campus fire
safety.

Finally, one more event happened in 2000-the startup of Campus
Firewatch!

Campus Firewatch was created because of the lack of a focal point for
campus fire safety. This was identified in the final report of Forum I
as a pressing need, but no organization had stepped forward. The success
of this newsletter, and its companion website, has demonstrated the
demand and the need for the information that we provide.

Our subscribers include, among others, campus fire safety professionals,
housing administrators and fire chiefs. Each month, Campus Firewatch is
sent to every fire marshal in the state of Washington by the office of
the Washington State Fire Marshal. In addition, starting in 2001,
through an arrangement with the National Association of State Fire
Marshals, it will be distributed to every state fire marshal in the
United States. Campus Firewatch has appeared in publications such as
Engineering News-Record and University Business magazines.

The following are some other accomplishments that we are proud to have
been a part of in the year 2000:

-   NFPA asked Campus Firewatch to organize Forum II because of its
    recognized role as a leader in the area of campus fire safety. This
    forum was an outstanding success.

-   Campus Firewatch assisted state and federal legislators that were
    introducing campus fire safety legislation.

-   NFPA asked me to write the new chapter on campus fire safety for the
    19^th^ edition of the NFPA Fire Protection Handbook.

-   The National Association of State Fire Marshals has asked Campus
    Firewatch to update its innovative CD-ROM, "Meeting of the Minds."
    This CD will contain a wealth of information to help those involved
    with providing campus fire safety by providing them with information
    about what others in the field are doing. This will serve as a means
    to "share the wealth" and help people take advantage of successful
    programs being used elsewhere in the country

-   I have presented at programs from Pennsylvania to Washington State,
    as well as testified before legislative hearings on campus fire
    safety.

What will 2001 bring?

Hopefully, no fatalities. Unrealistic? Perhaps, but we need to strive
towards that as our goal, using whatever means are at our disposal.
Whenever the opportune moment arises, the "teachable moment," we need to
grab hold of it and drive home the message of fire safety. This will
translate to not only improved safety on our campuses, but will
hopefully create a change in the mindset of a new generation as they
move forward.

Legislation Update

Due to the last-minute legislation that was being introduced in
Washington, it was not possible to provide an accurate update on the
legislation relating to campus fire safety. The following is a list of
the legislation that was in the pipeline. An update will be provided in
the January issue.

## Legislation

S 2100

College Fire Prevention Act

## Jurisdiction

Federal

## Sponsor

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)

United States Senate

225 Dirksen Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

202-224-3154

<senator@edwards.senate.gov>

## Cosponsors

Senator Spencer Abraham (R-MI)\
United States Senate\
329 Dirksen Senate Office Building\
Washington, DC 20510\
Phone: (202) 224-4822\
Fax: (202) 224-8834\
<michigan@abraham.senate.gov>

http://www.senate.gov/\~abraham/

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT)\
448 Russell Office Bldg.\
United States Senate\
Washington, D.C. 20510\
(202) 224-2823 (tel)

\(202\) 224-1083 (fax)

[Senator@dodd.senate.gov](mailto:Senator@dodd.senate.gov?subject=WEBSITE COMMENT)

http://www.senate.gov/\~dodd/

Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)

364 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

\(202\) 224-2152 (tel)

\(202\) 228-0400 (fax)

<dick@durbin.senate.gov>

http://www.senate.gov/\~durbin/

Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)

United States Senate

506 Senate Hart Building

Washington, DC 20510

\(202\) 224-4744 (tel)

\(202\) 224-9707 (fax)

<frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov>

http://www.senate.gov/\~lautenberg/

Senator Robert Toricelli (D-NJ)

United States Senate

113 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

\(202\) 224-3224 (tel)

\(202\) 224-8567 (fax)

<senatortorricelli@torricelli.senate.gov>

## Funding

\$100,000,000

## Facilities

Dormitories, fraternities or sororities

**Summary**\
Authorizes appropriations for competitive grants to help provide fire
sprinkler systems in student housing and dormitories.

Authorizes the Secretary of Education to award such grants to States,
private or public colleges or universities, fraternities, or sororities
to assist them in providing such systems.

Requires grant recipients to provide matching funds equal to at least
one-half of project costs.

Directs the Comptroller General to gather, and report to Congress, data
on the number of college and university housing facilities and
dormitories that have and do not have fire sprinkler systems and other
forms of built-in fire protection mechanisms.

## Legislation

S 2108

HR 3895

Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act

## Jurisdiction

Federal

## Sponsors

Senator Robert Toricelli (D-NJ)

United States Senate

113 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

\(202\) 224-3224 (tel)

\(202\) 224-8567 (fax)

<senatortorricelli@torricelli.senate.gov>

Representative Bill Pascrell

1722 Longworth Building (HOB)

Washington, DC 20515

\(202\) 225-5751 (tel)

\(202\) 225-5782 (fax)

bill.pascrell@mail.house.gov

## Funding

N/A

## Facilities

Campuses nationwide

## 

## Summary

## 

## Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require each eligible institution participating in any program under title IV (Student Assistance) to: (1) prepare, publish, and distribute to all current students and employees, and to any applicant for enrollment or employment upon request, an annual fire safety report which discloses specified types of information about that institution\'s campus fire safety standards and practices; (2) make timely reports to the campus community on fires that are reported to local fire departments and the incidence of false fire alarms on campus, to aid in preventing similar occurrences; (3) maintain a log recording all fires reported to local fire departments and all false fire alarms, open to public inspection except where disclosure of such information is prohibited by law; and (4) submit annually to the Secretary of Education a copy of statistics on campus occurrences of fires and false fire alarms. 

Directs the Secretary to: (1) review such statistics; (2) make copies
available to the public; (3) identify exemplary fire safety policies,
procedures, and practices, and disseminate information concerning those
policies, procedures, and practices that have proven effective in the
reduction of campus fires; and (4) report to the Congress analyses of
the current status of fire safety systems in college and university
facilities, and of the appropriate fire safety standards to apply to
these facilities, as well as cost estimates and recommendations.

## Legislation

S 2178

HR 3831

Fire Safe Dorm Act of 2000

## Jurisdiction

Federal

Sponsors

Senator Frank Lautenberg

United States Senate

506 Senate Hart Building

Washington, DC 20510

\(202\) 224-4744 (tel)

\(202\) 224-9707 (fax)

<frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov>

<http://www.senate.gov/~lautenberg/>

http://www.senate.gov/\~torricelli/

Representative Carolyn Maloney

2430 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

\(202\) 225-7944 (tel)

\(202\) 225-4709 (fax)

<rep.carolyn.maloney@mail.house.gov>

http://www.house.gov/maloney/

## Funding

N/A

## Facilities

Campuses nationwide

## Summary

The objective of this bill is to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965
to require colleges and universities to disclose to students and their
parents the incidents of fires in dormitories, and their plans to reduce
fire safety hazards in dormitories, to require the United States Fire
Administration to establish fire safety standards for dormitories, and
for other purposes.

## Legislation

HR 4504

Higher Education Technical Amendments of 2000

## Jurisdiction

Federal

## Sponsor

Representative Buck McKeon

2242 Rayburn HOB\
Washington D.C. 20515\
(202) 225-1956 (tel)\
(202) 226-0683 (fax)

<tellbuck@mail.house.gov>

http://www.house.gov/mckeon/

## Funding

N/A

## Facilities

Campuses nationwide

## Summary

This legislation has several amendments attached to it pertaining to
campus fire safety. They include providing a description of campus fire
safety features, reports on the number of fires and false alarms, and an
analysis of current fire safety systems and plans for upgrading fire
protection.

## Legislation

HB 2458

Dormitory Automatic Sprinkler Act

## Jurisdiction

Pennsylvania

## Sponsors

Representative Michael McGeehan

221B South Office

Harrisburg, PA 17120

\(717\) 772-4029 (tel)

<mcgeehan@pahouse.net>

www.pahouse.net/McGeehan/index.htm

**Funding**

\$100,000,000

## Facilities

Dormitories and Greek housing

## Status

This legislation died in committee in the Senate.

**Summary**

Representative Michael McGeehan introduced House Bill 2458, the
Dormitory Automatic Sprinkler Act, on April 11, 2000. This bill calls
for the installation of sprinklers in all new dormitories, existing
dormitories and Greek housing within five years. It proposes the
appropriation of \$100,000,000 to fund a sprinkler loan fund for low
interest loans.

Seen Elsewhere

Some of the following stories were seen on the news wires...

On the international front, there was a fire in Coventry, England, that
was caused by an unattended candle. The fire ignited combustible
materials and caused an aerosol can to explode. A 41-year old Coventry
University student, who was sleeping upstairs in the apartment, was
wakened by the smoke alarm and was just getting up as the aerosol can
exploded.

While we're still overseas, Edinburgh University in the United Kingdom
was recently put on notice by the local authority to improve the level
of fire safety in university-run apartments. Violations included "faulty
fire doors, corridors used as storage areas, poor electrics and windows
which would not open," according to press reports.

Milford Academy in Milford, Connecticut apparently has some of the same
problems. Officials closed down two dormitories for 17 "major safety
violations," including blocked exits. The buildings are equipped with
fire sprinklers, but officials were concerned about the ability of the
students to safely exit the building if a fire should break out.

The University of Rhode Island is going to ban smoking in campus housing
starting on June 1.

Campus Fire Log-December

November 17, 2000

Washington State University

Pullman, Washington

Two fraternity men were arrested for allegedly breaking into the Kappa
Kappa Gamma sorority and setting off a smoke bomb that ignited a portion
of the carpet. Smoke alarms were activated because of the fire. Both men
admitted they were intoxicated at the time of the incident.

November 20, 2000

Montclair State University

Montclair, NJ

An electrical fire forced the evacuation of 600 students for one hour.
According to press reports the students were using a microwave when the
plug short-circuited, causing the fire.

November 22, 2000

New York University

New York, NY

A graduate student was killed in an apartment fire. The fire was started
by three candles at the foot of her bed that ignited her mattress. The
woman, Helen Carnegie, 25, was found lying on the floor next to the bed.
At the time of the press account, an autopsy had not been completed, but
it was reported that she appeared to have died of smoke inhalation.

According to Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen, there have been 239
fires started by candles this year. This fire was the 13^th^ fatal
candle fire, an increase of eight from the previous year.

November 23, 2000

University of Nevada-Las Vegas

Las Vegas, Nevada

A fire in a residence hall on Thanksgiving morning was controlled by the
activation of a sprinkler system. The fire broke out during Thanksgiving
break and caused water damage to six rooms. The room was unoccupied at
the time of the fire.

November 26, 2000

Oregon State University

Corvallis, Oregon

An OSU senior was able to escape an early morning fire that caused
significant damage to her house. She was the only one of the five
occupants that was home at the time of the fire. According to press
reports, she was wakened by the sound of breaking glass, opened her door
and was faced with a wall of smoke. She was able to make it through the
smoke and escape from the building.

December 4, 2000

Washington State University

Pullman, Washington

A fire in an apartment at the University of Washington was started when
a mattress was left on a baseboard heater. The fire was contained to the
room of origin because of a closed door, according to a spokesperson.
The other two apartments in the building were not damaged by the fire.

November 30, 2000

Tennessee Tech University

Cookeville, Tennessee

Two fires occurred in Prescott Hall. The first was believed to have been
started by a fan motor. The second was discovered four hours later by a
security guard and destroyed a four-room office. Other areas of the
building were damaged by smoke and water and classes had to be relocated
to other buildings.

November 30, 2000

University of California-Berkeley

Berkeley, California

Two fires in a dormitory are suspected to be arson. The fire department
responded to fire alarms in the building shortly after 3:00 a.m. where
they found two separate fires. One had been ignited in the laundry room
while a second was occurred in a pile of papers in a second floor
hallway.

December 8, 2000

Seton Hall University

South Orange, New Jersey

A small trash can fire in Boland Hall, the site of the tragic January
2000 fire that killed three students, was extinguished by the activation
of the sprinkler head. Six hundred students were evacuated.

December 9, 2000

Bryant College

Smithfield, Rhode Island

A fire started by a candle in a four-story dormitory injured two
students. Two public safety officers were also taken to the hospital for
evaluation. The fire occurred when the candle was knocked over onto the
bed. Bryant has a policy against the use of candles.

December 9, 2000

University of North Carolina

Chapel Hill, North Carolina

CHRIS-ITALICIZE

The following information was provided in an interview by Campus
Firewatch with Fire Chief Dan Jones.

CHRIS-END ITALICS

CHRIS-INSERT PHOTOGRAPH FROM CHAPEL HILL WITH THIS INCIDENT.

A fire in the Sigma Nu fraternity was controlled by the activation of
two sprinklers. According to an interview by Campus Firewatch with Fire
Chief Dan Jones, the occupant had discarded an ashtray into a plastic
wastebasket and then left the room. The contents of the wastebasket were
ignited, which subsequently spread to adjacent combustibles. Two
sprinkler heads in the room of origin operated, extinguishing the fire.

The occupants of the house were unaware that a fire had occurred, and
contacted the fire department because they believed a sprinkler head had
failed. Upon investigation by the fire department, the fire was
discovered.

The sprinkler system had been connected to the water supply only two
days before the incident. All fraternities are under a mandatory
sprinkler ordinance, and must have sprinkler systems installed by
September 2001.

Sigma Nu is immediately adjacent to the Phi Gamma Delta house, which was
the site of the fatal fire in 1996 that killed five students.

December 10, 2000

University of Dayton

Dayton, Ohio

The following information was obtained from press accounts and an
interview by Campus Firewatch with Dayton Fire Department officials.

A fire in a house owned by the University of Dayton killed a student on
Sunday, December 10. Austin Cohen, 21, of Loveland and a senior at the
university, died in the fire. There were eight students living in the
house at the time of the fire. According to reports, an earlier fire at
the house had been extinguished by the residents. One of the occupants,
a University of Dayton student, was later arrested and charged with
involuntary manslaughter and arson.

According to fire department officials, the fire alarm system was
disconnected at the time of the fire.

The building was a two-story, wood frame building that was owned by the
University of Dayton. According to fire officials, the university was
buying a number of properties to use for student housing.

December 10, 2000

University of Texas

Austin, TX

A fire caused \$1.5 million in damage following a holiday party in the
Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. It was caused when someone discarded a
cigarette onto shredded paper that had been strewn on the floor to
simulate snow. The fraternity system had agreed to undergo fire
department inspections before such gatherings, but the Austin Fire
Department had not been contacted before this fire.

It was reported that the floor was covered with 18 inches of confetti.

December 12, 2000

University of Missouri at Columbia

Columbia, Missouri

The following information was provided by Lt. Steve Sapp, public
information officer/assistant fire marshal for the Columbia Fire
Department.

On December 12, 2000 at approx. 10:15 PM the Columbia Missouri Fire
Department responded to a fire at the Rollins Cafeteria. Rollins
Cafeteria is a central dining hall adjoined at common entrances to two
7-story residence halls.

 

The fire was in a utility room just off the kitchen. The contents in a
dryer caught fire when employee\'s placed cleaning towels in the dryer
for an extended period. The towels should not have been dried but rather
hung to dry on a clothesline. A five gallon plastic bucket on top of the
dryer added to the fuel load.

 

The fire was controlled and all but extinguished by a single sprinkler
head activation. This is a limited area sprinkler for the cafeteria only
and does not cover the residence halls themselves.

 

Residence hall assistants performed well during the fire and the
building was evacuated in short order with little trouble from the
residents despite the fact it was 8 degrees outside. Residents were
displaced to nearby residence halls for about 1-½ hours.

 

The University of Missouri at Columbia is proposing a major renovation
to all residence halls on campus to the Board of Curators this week that
will include state of the art fire alarm systems as well as automatic
fire sprinkler systems. A joint funding arraignment between the Columbia
Fire Department and the University will also place an Assistant Fire
Marshal from the Columbia Fire Department on half time University staff
to address campus fire safety issues in the next few weeks. This is a
permanent position that we feel will enhance relations as well as fire
safety on our campus.

Sunday, December 17

George Washington University

Washington, DC

A fire in an underground electrical vault on the GWU campus forced the
evacuation of three dormitories.

Power strips-what is the story?

Recently there has been a debate on the International Association of
Campus Fire Safety Official's listserv about the appropriate use of
power strips/power taps.

The issue is a serious one that everyone responsible for campus fire
safety probably encounters. The electrical systems in older dormitories
and residences are not designed to handle the number of appliances,
computers and stereos being brought in by today's students. Or, as one
person put it, "...residents trying to power the equivalent of a 2500 sq
ft. house off of a single outlet..."

One specific concern was that of connecting power strips together, or
what is called "daisy chaining" them so that there are more outlets
available. There was quite a discussion as to whether this was a
dangerous practice because, as was pointed out by several people, each
strip was equipped with circuit breakers that would theoretically open
in the event of an overload.

To help resolve this, Campus Firewatch called Underwriters Laboratory.
According to Joe Hirschmugl, a spokesperson for UL, daisy chaining is
not an acceptable practice. Power strips, or power taps as they are
sometimes called, are considered temporary wiring and by connecting them
together you "decrease the safety of the ground" and increase the
impedance.

This is echoed by another electrical specialist who told Campus
Firewatch that the power strips are intended to be plugged directly into
a wall receptacle.