A great deal has been made about the Partnership for Safer Buildings’ effort to restore the
passive fire protection provisions in the building code. The Partnership views the model
codes as one way of ensuring safer buildings. We envision a day without tradeoffs —
where buildings routinely have effective sensoring alarms, sprinklers and passive

protection throughout.

But much more fundamental than the integrity of the people who write the codes is the
integrity of the people who make and sell the fire protection technologies that the codes
specify. The Partnership did not conduct an exhaustive, scientific sample of commercial
buildings. We didn’t have to. We walked into hospitals, extended care facilities, schools
and well-known office buildings and with little trouble, discovered fire protective

coatings lying in piles below the steel structures they were supposed to protect.

And we open envelopes containing the sprinkler manufacturers’ latest monthly reports on
recalled sprinkler heads. Millions of these potentially defective heads remain in place,
years after they were identified. The United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission had to go to federal court to persuade the sprinkler companies to do the right
thing. Where are the recalled heads? The Commission does not know where the recalled
sprinkler heads are. State and local fire code officials get monthly summary reports, but

they don’t know exactly where these defective heads are.



{pause}

Fire code officials understand financial pressures. The Fire Prevention Bureau of the
Syracuse, New York, Fire Department was shut down for lack of resources. A college

town without a fire prevention bureau. Unbelievable, but not all that unusual.

We have heard it said that poor code enforcement was to blame for the terrible Station
nightclub fire in Rhode Island that killed 100 people — many of them in under 90 seconds.
I don’t intend to say much about that fire. Your investigation will undoubtedly answer

many of the lingering questions.

There will never be enough fire code enforcement officials to inspect every building,
much less every building every day. We are a resource to people of integrity who care
about safety. We hold people who make bad decisions about safety accountable — but
there are too many of them and not enough of us. The code enforcement officials in
Rhode Island are doing the best they can with the authority and budgets they are given.

The same is true everywhere.

Never again will fire code officials take the fall for a major fire. These fires happen
when people oppose us in the model codes and on the streets of the towns we are sworn
to protect. And, when and where people of integrity have installed the fire protection

systems that we have demanded, those systems must work. We must send the message



In thinking about this even more broadly, one cannot overlook the many politicians who
support fire protection. New Hampshire’s former Governor Jeanne Shaheen is an
example of an elected official who took the time to understand safety and support
emergency responders every chance she got. But then there are the politicians who
pressure code enforcement officials to go easy on building owners, cut code enforcement

budgets and generally interfere with our work.

In all walks of life, people face tough choices. Fire code officials don’t agree with the
decision to save a few bucks on construction to remain competitive in a slow rental
market —- but we understand it. We don’t agree with a politician’s decision to help a

large constituent deal with a fire code violation — but we understand it.

We even understand a firefighter’s decision to enter a burning building to look for
victims, however, we don’t always agree with that decision, either. But a firefighter’s
decision to risk his or her own life is based on an abundance of integrity, not an absence

of it.

When you are faced with life or death situations day after day, you learn to understand

the importance of integrity.

I am here to say that we do not understand — and we certainly do not agree with -- the

decision to make and install fire protection technologies that do not work.



We have gone to the two trade associations representing sprinkler manufacturers and
installers, to ask for their help in identifying the hospitals, schools, nursing homes and
other high-risk occupancies that may still have defective sprinklers. Nothing. We have
gone to Tyco, the leading manufacturer of sprinklers ... and presently they won’t sit

down with us.

And so we are going directly to the people who own the health care facilities, schools and
shopping centers that may not have the protection they purchased. There are some very
tough questions here, but we are advising our members to be conservative. Should
certificates of occupancy be revoked for a hospital with defective sprinklers? That would

be my call, but each community must decide for itself.

Integrity? We are sworn to protect the public. What else should we do?

We have learned that the fire protection technologies — the products that we have fought

to include in the model codes — may not work as advertised. This must stop.

Active and passive fire protection industries’ are working against each other — and
against AHJs — in the model codes. I guess we all love fire safety when it sells our

product, but not when it sells someone else’s. This must also stop.

Earlier this month, an informal committee of state and local fire marshals met with staff

from trade associations representing the sprinkler and passive fire protection industries.



that building safety goes beyond design features and characteristics of construction, and

is dependent, in equal part, on each individual involved in the process.

It all comes down to that one word - Integrity.

Thank you for your commitment to fire safety, and thank you for the opportunity to speak

to you today.



National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Construction Safety Team
(NCST) Advisory Committee update on the World Trade Center (WTC)
Investigation.

Comments of Robert Polk, on behalf of the National Association of State Fire Marshals’
Partnership for Safer Buildings

Mr. Chairman, members of the Advisory Committee, and quests,

My name is Robert Polk. I am here today on behalf of the National Association of State
Fire Marshals’ Partnership for Safer Buildings, which consists of experts from the fire
service, insurance and standards development communities, and the construction
industry. As we have previously testified, the Partnership has come to many of the same
conclusions that you now seem to be reaching. We welcome your work and appreciate

the time and attention you are giving to fire safety.

We are proud that the National Construction Safety Team Act was passed into law
because we also recognize the need, as the Act states, “to improve the safety and

structural integrity of buildings in the United States.”

Today I would like to comment on this goal, and more specifically on a single word
contained within that goal: integrity. We talk a lot about the integrity of the buildings we

seek to protect. In the event of a fire, will people be able to exit safely? Will firefighters



The concerns I just spoke of were shared at this meeting. It was our hope that the two
industries could work together to develop a pian -- first, outlining how best to approach
the replacement of all defective products, and second, outlining how they plan to work
together to develop proposals for the model code organizations that serve safety
Unfortunately, we never received a plan because we were told that this request -- to work

with one another, as opposed to against one another -- could not be guaranteed.

Our next stop was the senior management of the leading companies in these two
industries. As I mentioned earlier, Tyco wouldn’t meet. But Grace not only agreed to
meet but said it would support stronger requirements for sprinklers as part of a package

of stronger fire protection requirements.

Tyco and Grace are companies that know all about the importance of integrity — not at
some abstract corporate level, but in the choices that are made daily by their most junior
employees. But as a matter of integrity, code enforcement officials cannot wait for

executives to take action here.

When sprinklers fail, small fires become big ones and people die. When passive
measures fail, buildings collapse and people — including firefighters -- die. Mistakes
may have been made, and they will be corrected. But both industries must be put on
notice. They must be aware that if they knowingly manufacture or install poor quality
products in another building ... ever again ... it is no longer a mistake. That is a

conscious decision to risk the lives of others.


be able to enter the building to look for victims and to conduct interior suppression
activities safely? Were the fire protection systems designed, installed and maintained

with integrity? In this context integrity and honesty are the same word.

I have spent the last 32 years as a Firefighter, Paramedic, Fire Officer, Fire Chief, and
State Fire Marshal, and now as a spokesman and advocate for fire safety. Long ago, I
stopped talking about the integrity of things. It all comes down to the integrity of the

individual people who make choices that affect others ... that affect public safety.

Let’s begin with the integrity of architects. Some do all they can to design safer

buildings. Some do not.

Then, of course, there are building owners and managers. Some are willing to invest in
safety. Marriott Corporation immediately comes to mind. Its commitment to public safety
is extraordinary. And Marriott is not alone. There are others who care just as much about
the safety of the people who use their buildings. But unfortunately, there are many
building owners and managers who view safety as something that cuts into their bottom

line.

Beyond architects and buildings owners, there are the occupants of the space, or tenants.
Some tenants — like DuPont, for example — have established cultures where safety and
health matter. Sadly, there are others that think nothing of blocking exits, carelessly

storing hazardous materials and taking all sorts of risks.



In thinking about this even more broadly, one cannot overlook the many politicians who
support fire protection. New Hampshire’s former Governor Jeanne Shaheen is an
example of an elected official who took the time to understand safety and support
emergency responders every chance she got. But then there are the politicians who
pressure code enforcement officials to go easy on building owners, cut code enforcement

budgets and generally interfere with our work.

In all walks of life, people face tough choices. Fire code officials don’t agree with the
decision to save a few bucks on construction to remain competitive in a slow rental
market —- but we understand it. We don’t agree with a politician’s decision to help a

large constituent deal with a fire code violation — but we understand it.

We even understand a firefighter’s decision to enter a burning building to look for
victims, however, we don’t always agree with that decision, either. But a firefighter’s
decision to risk his or her own life is based on an abundance of integrity, not an absence

of it.

When you are faced with life or death situations day after day, you learn to understand

the importance of integrity.

I am here to say that we do not understand — and we certainly do not agree with -- the

decision to make and install fire protection technologies that do not work.