us fire chief pleads with the cpsc to warn about ionization smoke alarms

8/9/2019 US Fire Chief Pleads with the CPSC to Warn about Ionization Smoke Alarms

1/23

August 16, 2009

Kelvin Cochran, Administrator

U.S. Fire Administration

16825 S. Seton Ave.

Emmitsburg, MD 21727 [email protected]

Dear Mr. Cochran and Mr. Khanna:

I would like to once again plead with the U.S.F.A. and the C.P.S.C. to alert the public to the dangers of

ionization smoke alarms. I will not go in depth into my argument, since I have sent voluminous information

to both agencies in the past. However, I would like to point out the following events which you may not be

aware.

1. The States of Vermont and Massachusetts have passed laws/regulations restricting the use of

ionization smoke alarms.2. The International Association of Fire Fighters has decided to endorse my anti-ionization campaign.

3. A recent study titled, “The Current State of Global Smoke Alarm Legislation,” concluded that, “ For

developed countries such as Australia and the U.S., the ideal smoke alarm is photoelectric, hard-

wired with a battery back up, and interconnected. http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~rek/Projects/FPA_D09.pdf

All 3 of these items were based at least in part on my research which the U.S.F.A. and the C.P.S.C. has

ignored (except for the C.P.S.C.’s Jim Hoebel a long time ago). I have tried to highlight my concern by

analyzing the Campus Fire Safety Programs of the U.S.F.A. As ‘Attachment A’ explains, I believe that the

U.S.F.A. is missing a huge opportunity to educate the public about the benefit of photoelectric alarms.

I have also submitted several complaints to the C.P.S.C. regarding campus fires.

I have attached the following information:

Attachment A - My analysis of information published by Campus Firewatch. This information appears

to be the basis for the U.S.F.A. programs in this area (page 3).

Attachment B - Press Release referring to recent Senate Proclamation (page 8).

Attachment C - Press Release from Senator Kerry asking C.P.S.C. to investigate my concerns (page 9).

Attachment D - Article on Campus Fire Safety by Ed Comeau (page11).

Attachment E - My letter to the Editor rebutting some of Ed’s main points (page15).

Attachment F - Minutes of a meeting of the Public Private Fire Safety Council, which staff of U.S.F.A.,

C.P.S.C., and Campus Firewatch attended (page 17).

See discussion about “squelching” Jay Fleming” (see red text on pages 22 and 23).

Note: For clarity, this updated version of Chief Fleming’s report had minor typographical and formatting edits by the World Fire Safety Foundation.

Version 2.0 - Last Updated: 23 Feb 2015 | Check for Latest Version at: www.Scribd.com/doc/256541145

Rohit Khanna

Division of Engineering Sciences

U.S. Consumer Product Safety Division

4330 East West HighwayBethesda, MD 20814

[email protected]

JayFlemingReportForUSFA&CPSC_16Aug09.PDF

mailto:[email protected]://web.cs.wpi.edu/~rek/Projects/FPA_D09.pdfhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://web.cs.wpi.edu/~rek/Projects/FPA_D09.pdfhttp://web.cs.wpi.edu/~rek/Projects/FPA_D09.pdfmailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/23

2

The U.S.F.A. seems to have completely delegated any research in the area of campus fire safety to “Campus

Fire Watch’. As I stated in an earlier letter to the U.S.F.A., it is not a good idea to delegate this type of

analysis to a private entity that may rely on private funding. (In my earlier letter I was referring to agencies

like U.L. and the N.F.P.A.) I have sent most of my research to Campus Firewatch and have tried to make

them aware of my concerns but I still see misleading information from Campus Firewatch. For example,

after I pointed out that most campus fires have working smoke alarm (over 80%) Campus Firewatch, and

those who rely upon it like the U.S.F.A. and Senator Lautenberg, continue to claim that “disabled alarms are

a “common factor” in campus fire deaths. I do not mean to imply that anyone would deliberately provideunsafe or incomplete fire safety information, because of this type of private funding, but as Upton Sinclair

stated so eloquently, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his

not understanding it.”

Please look at the attached information with an open mind and investigate the complaints that I have sent to

the C.P.S.C.

Here are ‘campus related,’ complaints.

• University of Indiana - 12/2002

• University of Indiana - 05/2004• George Washington University - 03/2005

• University of Miami of Ohio - 04/2005• University of Pittsburgh - 11/2006• University of Nebraska - 12/2006

• University of Missouri - St Louis - 12/2006• University of Wisconsin - 12/2007

• Plattsburgh University (NY) - 02/2009• University of Wisconsin - Stout - 12/2006

In closing, I would like to once again ask for all of the minutes of the meetings of the Public Private Fire

Safety Council for the last 2 years. I would be curious to see if my efforts were discussed at other meetings.

Sincerely,

Joseph Fleming

(Writing as a U.S. citizen but I can be reached at the BFD)(Deputy Fire Chief – Boston Fire Dept.)Ph: (781) 248 3451c.c. Roderick Fraser, Commissioner - Boston Fire Dept. Ronald Keating, Chief of Department - Boston Fire Dept.

Note: For clarity, this version of Chief Fleming’s report has had minor typographical and formatting edits by the World Fire Safety Foundation.

Version 2.0 - Updated: 23 Feb 2015 | Check for the Latest Version at: www.Scribd.com/doc/256541145

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145


3/23

3



COMMENTS ON INFORMATION

• In 76% (20.5/27.0) of the fires, were “Alarm Status” is known, the Smoke Alarm operated.

• In only 22% of the fires (6.5/27.0) was the detector disabled. - So why does Campus Firewatch, U.S.F.A., U.L. etc. claim that “disabled detectors are a common factor?”

• One could assume that smoke detectors may not be much of a benefit in arson fires and fires that start on theexterior then “blow in” through the windows. Of the scenarios, in which the smoke detector should provide a benefit, 75% are smoldering.

• If one assumes that using photoelectric technology should help in the fires were the detector operated duringsmoldering scenarios (accounting for unknowns) then photos should help in about 33% (9/27) of the scenarios.

• If one assumes that photos should help reduce disablement then photos should help in 16% (3/18) of thescenarios.

•This data means that by using photoelectric technology as opposed to the current use of ionizationtechnology we might reduce campus related fire deaths by 50%.

• U.S.F.A., /Campus Firesafety, Campus Firewatch, U.L., U.S. Congress, etc. all seem to have a policy that aims to: 1. Push for sprinklers as the only “protective” solution since to quote Ed Comeau, “There really isn’t anything anything else on the horizon (other than sprinklers) that will bring about the next quantum drop in fire deaths”

2. Push for more education.

• As indicated earlier isn’t a 50% reduction by the use of photoelectric technology a “quantum drop in fire deaths?”In addition, if we are going to educate students, why doesn’t anyone educate them about the benefit of photoelectric technology to reduce nuisance alarms?

• According to Campus Firewatch, even if all dorms and “Greek housing” were to be sprinkled that wouldhelp at most 16% of victims.

Attachment A

“ My strategy has the potential to help two to

three as many students as the U.S.F.A.’s,

and do it for much less money.” Deputy Chief Jay Fleming, Boston Fire Department, Boston, MA, U.S.A.

(More about Chief Fleming on the last page of this report )



4/23

4



*C.P.S.C. - Means a complaint was filed with the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Note:

Campus Firewatch did not include a fire in a dormitory at George Washington

University (DC). It occurred on March 22, 2005. A very brave young man named Kevin

McLaughlin was seriously burned in a fire that he believes was started with smoking

material. News reports indicated that the smoke alarms operated. (At the time of the

fire, I sent George Washington University my research and I asked them to tell me what

type of smoke alarms were installed in the dorm room. Not surprisingly I never heardfrom them but I am sure that the U.S.F.A. could find out. (I filed a complaint with the

C.P.S.C. regarding this fire.)



5/23

5



*C.P.S.C. - Means a complaint was filed with the Consumer Product Safety Commission



6/23

6





7/23

7



Only 16% of fatalities occur inDorms or Greek housing

This is not a “common factor”(See FayFleming’s letter page 15)



8/23

8



Attachment B

Press Release of Senator Lautenberg

Senate Passes Lautenberg Resolution

To

Designate September Campus Fire Safety Month

Resolution Would Encourage Better

Fire Safety Practices on College Campuses

Contact: Lautenberg Press Office (202) 224-3224

Friday, August 7, 2009

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) today announced the Senate

approved a resolution he authored to designate September as Campus Fire Safety Month.

The resolution comes on the heels of the College Fire Safety Right-to-Know Act, which

was authored by Sen. Lautenberg and signed into law last year. The resolution requirescolleges and universities to publish campus fire safety information.

“Fire safety is an important issue on college campuses. We must take every step possible to

prevent a tragedy like the 2000 Seton Hall fire from ever happening again. I hope Campus Fire

Safety month will inspire colleges and universities around the country to improve their fire alarm

systems and provide thorough fire safety education to all its students on a regular basis,” Sen.

Lautenberg said.

“I made campus fire safety a priority ever since the tragedy at Seton Hall University. It’s time

that we finally bring light to this often overlooked issue,” said Rep. Bill Pascrell, the House

author of the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act which was signed into law last year. “I

applaud Senator Lautenberg for his efforts and look forward to passing a companion resolution in

the House.”

The resolution notes that since January 2000, at least 129 people – including students,

parents and children – have died in campus related fires. It also notes that a number of

fatal fires have occurred in buildings in which the fire systems had been compromised or

disabled by the occupants and that fire safety education is an effective method of

reducing fires and the loss of life and property.

The resolution was cosponsored by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and raises awarenessabout campus fire safety and encourages better fire safety standards on college

campuses.



9/23

9

Attachment C

KERRY PUSHES CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

TO ANSWER FOR UNSAFE SMOKE DETECTORSFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

June 12, 2008CONTACT: Brigid O'Rourke, 617-565-8252

BOSTON - Senator John Kerry today sent a letter to the head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (C.P.S.C.), urging herto answer for smoke detectors that have continuously proven to be unsafe. Kerry's letter is a follow up on a letter sent by DeputyChief Joseph Fleming of the Boston Fire Department, who raised the issue with the C.P.S.C. earlier this year.

In his letter, dated March 12, 2008, Chief Fleming drew attention to safety issues surrounding ionization smoke detectors and askedthe C.P.S.C. to investigate. The C.P.S.C., which had expressed concerns about the detectors as early as 1995, has failed toinvestigate or to even respond to Chief Fleming's concerns.

"This should be a no-brainer. If smoke detectors are proven to be ineffective, why are they still being used? Chief Fleming rightlyraised this question earlier this year. I strongly urge the C.P.S.C. to immediately provide answers to his concerns as well as toconsider the potential loss of life when Americans are using inadequate and unsafe smoke detectors," said Senator Kerry.

The text of the letter is below:

____________________________________________________________

June 12, 2008

Chairman Nancy NordU.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission4330 East-West HighwayRoom 419Bethesda, MD 20814

Dear Chairman Nord:

I am writing as a follow-up to a letter sent to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (C.P.S.C.) by Deputy Fire Chief Joseph

Fleming of the Boston Fire Department on March 12, 2008 regarding the safety of smoke alarms. It is my understanding that thereare multiple unresolved issues concerning ionization detectors' inability to detect smoke or sound an alarm.

In fact, it is my understanding that the C.P.S.C. expressed serious concerns regarding ionization detectors as early as 1995. Theseconcerns mirror those put forward by Chief Fleming, an outspoken advocate for removing ionization detectors from themarketplace. Yet, the C.P.S.C. still has not acted to remove the alarms from the market, nor has the C.P.S.C. warned consumers asto the potential drawbacks of ionized detectors.

The issues that appear to be the most prescient and that were addressed by Mr. Fleming in his letter to you, still remain unsettled. Iask that you address, the questions in Chief Fleming's letter in detail, and respond to the following concerns:

1. The National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) has found that, on average, a photoelectric detector is 30 minutesfaster in detecting a smoldering fire than an ionized detector. The highest percentage of deaths caused by smoldering firesoccurs while people are sleeping, when the operation of a smoke detector is critical. In fact, this percentage may be as high as

100 percent. Four years ago NIST reached the conclusion that ionization detectors sometimes fail to alarm in smoldering fires,even when visibility is significantly degraded by smoke.

2. While ionized detectors alarm sooner in "ultra-fast" flaming fires by an average of 50 seconds, those seconds appear to benegligible considering that most people are awake when flaming fires occur. In addition, in what appears to be the mostcommon type of flaming fires (i.e. cooking fires) the photoelectric detector was providing more than enough time for anoccupant to escape.

3. Several studies show that the ionization smoke detector is many times more likely to be disabled than photoelectric detectors.





10/23

10

4. The ionization smoke detector is being used by the vast majority of Americans. The ionization smoke alarms susceptibility tonuisance alarms (leading to disablement) and inadequate response to smoldering fires could be responsible for hundreds ofneedless deaths each year.

Recently, due to the efforts of Chief Fleming of the Boston Fire Department to educate the authorities to these facts, the states ofMassachusetts and Vermont have taken steps to restrict the use of ionization smoke detectors in residential occupancies. Inresponse to the available evidence that suggests the inherent danger of ionization detectors, I ask that you promptly investigate theissues raised by Chief Fleming, and that you respond to his letter of March 12, 2008.

Fire safety and the use of working fire alarms are vital to the protection of our children, seniors, adults and families around theUnited States. I strongly urge you to provide a timely response to the above concerns and to consider the potential loss of lifeshould it become clear that a large percentage of Americans are using inadequate smoke detectors.

I appreciate your attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry

____________________________________________________________





11/23

11

Published 01 July 2007

Campus fire safety has become a fast-growing concern over the past few years with more attention being given bystudents, parents, administrators, municipal officials and legislators. One of the turning points was the tragicresidence hall fire in 2000 at Seton Hall University in New Jersey that killed three freshmen, which was followedexactly eight weeks later by another fire in a fraternity at Bloomsburg University in Pennsylvania that killed anotherthree students. Even though there had been other serious fires overthe years, the Seton Hall fire was a significant "wake-up" call foradministrators across the nation.

Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to know how many fires areoccurring in student housing on campuses. Up until 2000, theNational Fire Incident Reporting System (NFIRS) had collected dataon fires in the occupancy that was classified as

"dormitory" ("residence halls" is the preferred term by campusadministrators). However, in 2000 a change was made to expandthe definition of "dormitory" to include other occupancies such asmilitary barracks, nursing quarters and monasteries. For this reason,the statistics relating to "dormitory" are no longer limited just tocollege campuses, which is unfortunate because this data used to

provide a wealth of information regarding fire incidents.

Starting in 2000, Campus Firewatch began collecting informationanecdotally by scanning the wire services on a regular basis. Thedrawback to this method, versus having fire departments reportingtheir information through NFIRS, is that the information is not ascomplete since not all fires are necessarily reported by the media as

involving students. In addition, the information gathered is not asdetailed as that reported by the fire departments.

However, using this method provided a tremendous benefit in that itidentified where the majority of students were dying in fires, and it was not in the residence halls or fraternities - it

was in off-campus housing.

Since January 2000, Campus Firewatch has identified 94 campus-related fire fatalities, and almost 80 percent ofthose deaths have occurred in off-campus houses and apartments.

There are several contributing factors to this finding.

• According to the U.S. Department of Education, approximately one-third of students live on-campus, so a vastmajority of the student population is living in these off-campus occupancies.

• The houses or apartments that the students inhabit tend to be older and not as well-maintained as a residencehall.

• The buildings may not have all of the life-safety features found in a typical residence hall, such as fire alarms,sprinklers, adequate egress, etc.

• Often there are no restrictions on the use of candles, smoking, halogen lamps or other ignition sources.

• Since there is no supervision, students have the ability to have parties and consume alcohol withoutrestrictions.



Campus (and Off-Campus) Fire SafetyA U.S. Overview

by Ed Comeau, Owner, Publisher, Campus Firewatch

Attachment D



12/23

12

Campus Firewatch is in the process of gathering more information on these incidents in order to conduct a detailedanalysis. However, there are several common factors that have been seen in a number of the identified fire deaths:

• Off-campus housing.

• Lack of automatic fire sprinklers.

• Missing or disabled smoke alarms.

• Careless disposal of smoking materials.

• Impaired judgment from alcohol consumption.

When looking at the breakdown of fire deaths, there are several points to keep in mind. Since the incidents anddeaths are identified through media reports, the numbers are, in all likelihood, low, especially in off-campus fires.Fire deaths occurring in residence halls and Greek housing tend to be identified by the media as involving students,but fires in off-campus occupancies may not always be properly identified.

Campus Firewatch also includes other occupants that are killed in the fire, even though they may not be students.For example, a fire in Berkeley,CA, in an off-campus house killed the student living there and her parents,who werestaying overnight at the house. A gas explosion at Texas A&M in married-student housing killed the daughter andmother of a student, all of whom were living in the apartment.

There are four occupancy types that are used in identifying the location of the fatality. These four have beenselected since they encompass where all of the fatal fires have occurred since 2000.

• Off-campus.

• Residence hall.

• Greek housing.

• Educational.

The off-campus occupancies are any house or apartment that is not under the control of the institution. Generally,this tends to be either an apartment building or a one- or two-family house that is occupied by one or morestudents.

Residence halls are any building housing students that are under the control of the institution. This could includethe typical "dormitory-style" residence hall, married-student housing, graduate-student housing, etc. Thisclassification also includes any third-party residence halls (which are becoming more prevalent on campuses) or

houses that are purchased by the school for students to live in.

Greek housing is any building that is occupied by a recognized fraternity or sorority. The ownership on thesebuildings can vary significantly. In some cases, the building is owned by the national Greek organization; in othercases, it might be rented from a local landlord or owned by a local fraternity organization known as the corporationboard, or "corp board."

Due to the restrictions that schools are imposing upon fraternities and sororities in regards to parties, some Greekorganizations are renting houses or apartments that are used solely for entertainment. Several fires have occurredin these units.

Educational facilities would be any building owned or operated by the school for educational purposes, such as aclassroom building, arts facility, laboratory, etc.

Approach to Fire SafetyThe 18- to 24-year- old demographic is a difficult one to reach with fire-safety information. This is, quite simply, not

a topic that is important to them as they are heading off to school or moving off-campus. In addition, today'sstudents are bombarded with messages since they are a highly sought-after demographic.

A four-pronged approach is needed to provide a redundant level of fire protection to students:

• Prevention.

• Detection.

• Containment.

• Suppression.





13/23

13

Of the four components listed, prevention is the one that is probably the most problematic because of the collegestudent demographic.

Fire safety is not something that is big on the "radar screen" of an 18-year-old heading off to school for the firsttime. It is difficult to make them understand the importance of fire safety and their personal responsibility. Once theymove off-campus, it becomes even more difficult because the students are now harder to reach, they are living inunsupervised housing, have more freedom and the physical structure they live in may not be as well-maintained asare residence hall.

The other components of detection, containment and suppression are well-understood by the fire protection

engineering community. The difficulty lies in getting these components in place and then ensuring that they are notcircumvented or impaired by the students.

At a fraternity at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, the smoke detectors on a supervised fire-alarmsystem were covered with plastic and duct tape when a fire broke out that destroyed the building. The fire chiefordered an immediate inspection,and three other Greek houses were found with the same conditions.

Fire doors held open by wood chocks is probably one of the biggest headaches in a residence hall in regards tocontainment. Students don't understand the role that a fire door can play in stopping the spread of smokethroughout a building and, instead, view them as an inconvenience.

Suppression? Campus fire safety officials lament the three "Fs" when it comes to sprinklers: freshmen, footballs

and frisbees.

So often, following a tragedy, legislation or ordinance changes are proposed to address the conditions that wereinvolved in a fatal fire. In Chapel Hill, NC, Fire Chief Dan Jones had been trying for a number of years to have alocal ordinance passed that would require the retrofit installation of sprinklers in Greek housing. He wasunsuccessful in convincing the city council until May 1996, when five students were killed in a fraternity fire. Now, allof the fraternities and sororities in Chapel Hill are sprinklered.

In January 2007, Columbia, MO, passed a code amendment that mandated retrofit sprinkler installation in all Greekhousing within six years. This change comes almost eight years after a fire that killed a student at the University ofMissouri and, ironically, one day after a teenager was injured in a fire that was controlled by a sprinkler. The

occupant had come home intoxicated on New Year's Eve. He was lying on a futon smoking when the beddingcaught on fire. The apartment's smoke alarm had been disabled, but the building fire alarm system was activatedwhen a sprinkler started discharging water. Unquestionably, the timing and circumstances of this incident were afactor in influencing the city council.

Other communities recognize the danger and implement code changes before a tragedy strikes. Examples of suchproactive communities include Boulder, CO; Lawrence, KS; Tempe, AZ; and others that have all have passedlegislation calling for the installation of sprinklers and fire alarms in Greek housing and, in some communities,apartment complexes as well.

Education and AwarenessThe key to effective fire safety, however, lies in education and awareness among all of the parties involved -

students, parents, administrators, enforcement authorities and landlords. It is critical that each of them be aware oftheir responsibilities in fire safety and that they all work in concert with one another to provide as fire-safe anenvironment as possible.

Education is critical. So often, fire-safety education stops in about the third or fourth grade. When students areasked, "What should you do if your room catches on fire?," often there is a blank look or a response such as "stop,drop and roll?" What this proves is that the message they heard as children was effective. However, the message

did not mature with the audience, and they are unaware of what to do and how they now have personalresponsibility when it comes to fire safety.

There are two high-risk groups for fire safety - the very young and the elderly. This leaves a huge demographic inthe middle, almost 62 percent of the population, that does not receive fire-safety information on a regular basis, if at

all. This "middle demographic" are often the decision-makers and, perhaps more importantly, the taxpayers whofund much of the building and infrastructure.

Tragedies such as The Station nightclub fire where 100 people were killed when they tried to flee the fast-movingfire by going through the front door are often lamented. What is tragic is that there were a total of four exits from the





14/23

14

building, but as people are creatures of habit, they will frequently use the exits about which they are familiar.(Admittedly, not all of the exits were code-compliant.) The fault lies with fire-safety professionals for not ensuringthat the public is educated to look for a second means of exit whenever they enter a restaurant, a movie theater ora nightclub.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, there was a significant drop in the number of fire deaths across the nation,primarily due to the widespread use of smoke alarms. However, in recent years the number of fire deaths hasleveled off, mainly because the market is "saturated" with smoke alarms. Residential fire sprinklers would provide

the next significant drop in fire deaths, but realistically, it is going to be a number of years before they are widely in

use. There really isn't anything else on the horizon that will bring about the next quantum drop in fire deaths.Except Education According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are approximately 17 million students enrolled in collegesand universities across the United States. This presents an incredible opportunity to educate them about theimportance of fire-alarm systems,sprinkler systems, the role of fire doors and other building fire-safety features.This information will not only protect them for the time they are in college, but throughout their lives.

As a result, there is an informed constituency in regards to fire safety. Instead of having to "sell" them on theconcept of sprinklers and fire alarms, they are already aware of their importance. How much time and effort arecurrently expended trying to convince people the value of fire-safety features and designs that exceed the minimum

code requirements?

By educating today's students about comprehensive fire safety, the future of fire safety can be significantlyimpacted. There are 17 million opportunities available.

Ed Comeau is with the Center for Campus Fire Safety a nonprofit education and advocacy organization.



2007 Penton Media, Inc. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved.You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typinghttp://license.icopyright.net/3.7282?icx_id=301 into any web

browser. Penton Media, Inc and Fire Protection Engineering logos are registeredtrademarks of Penton Media, Inc .The iCopyright logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.

Note:See the following pages (pages 16 - 17) for Chief Fleming’s repsonce to the article.

_________________________________________________________

http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://license.icopyright.net/3.7282?icx_id=301http://license.icopyright.net/3.7282?icx_id=301http://license.icopyright.net/3.7282?icx_id=301http://license.icopyright.net/3.7282?icx_id=301http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145


15/23

15

Attachment E

Jay Fleming’s Letter to the Editor in response to Ed Comeau’s article (pages 12 - 15)

(Published in the S.F.P.E. Magazine)

As a fire chief in the city that might have the most college students per capita in the U.S., i.e. Boston, MA, I read with greatinterest the articles in your last issue that dealt with fire safety and colleges. I applaud the effort to get studentsadministrators & parents to pay more attention to this issue. However, I think some important information may have been

overlooked. Regarding the article titled, ‘Campus Fire Safety - A U.S. Overview’ (pages 12 - 15), Campus Firewatch, has anexcellent database of recent fires. Based on this information the article listed several “common factors.”

• Off Campus Housing – I agree.

• Lack of sprinklers – I agree.

• Missing or disabled alarms. – I disagree.

• Impaired judgment from alcohol – I agree to a certain extent.

My analysis of these fires, based on news account as well as information contained at Campus Firewatch indicates that in

many, if not most, of these fires the smoke alarms were present and worked. This should not be surprising. According to the

U.S.F.A., “Smoke alarms are more likely to operate in fraternity/sorority house fires than in all residential

fires.” (“Fraternity and Sorority House Fires,” Topical Research Fire Series, U.S.F.A., November 2001).

Here are some examples. (I have filed complaints with the Consumer Product Safety Commission on each of these fires for

faulty smoke alarms. They are just a couple of over 30 I have filed in the last year and a half.)

University of Miami of Ohio – 04/10/2005: 3 students died in a fire started by a cigarette on a couch. The ionization smoke

alarm was installed in the proper location and did operate but, according to the student who called 911, the smoke was too

thick to allow for safe egress by the time he woke up.

University of Nebraska, Lincoln – 12/14/2006: A student, who was due to give birth later that day, died in a fire started by an

electrical malfunction. (Investigators assume it smoldered for some time.) Although the ionization alarm was not located inthe bedroom, it was located just outside and the door was open allowing smoke to spread to the hallway. It is interesting to

note that the fire was reported by neighbors who awoke to smoke so thick in their apartment that they thought the fire was in

their apartment. Their smoke alarm was not sounding but they could hear the smoke alarm operating next door. Theyattempted to rescue the student but the smoke at the door was too thick.

Alcohol was not a factor in the Lincoln, Nebraska fire, but it was cited as a factor, by Campus Fire safety in the Ohio fire.

(Actually disabled detectors were also cited as a factor in this fire.) However, the student who called 911 had been at workuntil late and had not been at the party. I agree that once the egress paths were blocked, being impaired would affect one’s

chances of survival. However, if this had been a photoelectric or combination detector isn’t likely, based on the results of the

NIST Home Smoke Alarm Tests, that the student who was originally called 911 would have been alerted 30 minutes earlier.This would have allowed plenty of time to alert the occupant prior to untenable conditions along the egress path.

I would disagree with the following quote from this article. “In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s there was a significant drop

in the number of fire deaths across the nation, primarily due to the widespread use of smoke alarms.” In fact, fire deaths

were decreasing before the early 80’s and continued to decrease throughout the late 90’s. If fire deaths were reduced due tosmoke alarms then it should have taken place in the late 70’s and early 80’s not when the author believes it occurred. Other

researchers agree, “Smoke alarms usage exploded in the 70’s, and most purchases were made voluntarily. The buildingcodes came along and mopped up the relatively few holdouts. … Most of the potential benefit from smoke alarms occurred

with the initial acquisitions.” (Dr. John Hall, Letter to the Editor, Fire Protection Engineering, Spring 2005.) Obviously

other factors were responsible for the decrease note by the author.

I would also disagree with this quote, “There really isn’t anything else on the horizon (other than sprinklers) that will bring

about the next quantum drop in fire deaths.” Between 1990 and 2001 the % of fire fatalities that occurred with operating





16/23

16

smoke alarms, according to the U.S.F.A., practically doubled (approximately 19% to 38%). This increase coincided with thegradual introduction of ionization smoke alarms that had been de-sensitized to meet new requirements in UL217 (These were

put in place in 1988 to reduce nuisance alarms). At the same time, the requirements of the UL217 smoldering fire test were

relaxed. Most likely in order to allow these less sensitive alarms to be approved. It seems clear that these de-sensitizedsmoke alarms were responsible for most, if not all, of this increase in fire deaths that were occurring with operating smoke

alarms. The data from the NIST Home Smoke Alarm Tests supports this hypothesis, since it documents that the ionization

alarms are often providing negative ASET in smoldering fires. As a consequence it is possible that switching to smoke alarmtechnology that utilizes photoelectric technology, alone or in combination with other technology could reduce fire deaths by

20% or more. There would also be the benefit of reduced nuisance alarms. I would describe this as a “quantum drop” in firedeaths.

Regarding the article titled, “Community Collaboration: A College Administrator’s View of Campus Fire Safety”

When I was a Captain, I served on a Ladder Truck near several colleges. Every year we would have several hundred

responses to college dorms. When I became Fire Marshal, in 1995, I decided to make it a priority to solve the problem. Itold all of the universities that I was going to take them to court for failure to maintain their alarms systems. I informed them

that a system that went into alarm so often that it was ignored was no better than a system that was broken. In response tothis, the universities implemented several new policies:

• Criminally charge students who are caught

• Immediately expel students who are caught

• Provide rewards for students who testify against other students

• Fine every student on that floor $50 for every false alarm. (This becomes self-policing.)

• “Booby trap” pull stations with paint and use alarm covers that require student to stay at alarm while cover is sounding.

• Install cameras

• Have security check in all visitors.

• Have Fire Dept. keep all students out of building until every room has been checked. (1-2 hours)

While the system is not perfect here are some recent statistics for the last school year (09/06-06/07).

• 10 Somerset Street, Emerson University.(345 students) - 2 Alarms.

• 21 Forsythe Street, Northeastern University.(400 first year students) - 1 Alarm

• 700 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston University.(1,800 students) – 7 Alarms (not all were nuisance alarms)

I sometimes think schools do not want to punish students for what they view as a prank. But if “protecting” students from

criminal penalties, increases their risk of dying in a fire, what is that protection worth.

Joseph Fleming

Deputy Chief Boston Fire Dept.





17/23

17

Fire Safety Council News:

Rik Khanna - Consumer Product Safety Commission• C.P.S.C. is in a growth spurt. Last month, President Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety

Improvement Act, the greatest expansion in C.P.S.C.’s role since 1972. The new law increases our

reporting requirements and recall obligations.• There is a heavy focus in the new law on children’s products, including mandatory standards and

labeling requirements. The law also expands our authority to levy fines and issue recalls.• ASTM F93 – some impact on the flammability of children’s products• We’re still very involved in upholstered furniture flammability.• We have a research contract that was placed in the Federal Register weeks ago that asks a contractor

to build a prototype multi-sensor advanced smoke alarm, building upon U.L.’s smoke characteristics

research. The alarms, which may include photo, ion, and/or other technologies, must meet standardsfor both technical feasibility and marketability. The award should be made by October 1.

• Shivani is working on a multi-year research project regarding the effect on upholstered products by

reduced ignition propensity cigarettes. The use of these cigarettes have led to calls from mattress and

clothing manufacturers to reduce or eliminate the regulation of their products; these fire safe cigarettes

have a wide range of performance variability.• Michael Green has completed his work on the Residential Fire Survey; his results are now in internal

clearance.



• Cathie Patterson Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

• Meri-K Appy President, Home Safety Council• Dr Mick Ballesteros PhD MS Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Nancy Bill MPH CHES, IHS, Injury Prevention Officer, Indian Health Service• Sean Carroll Director of Government Affairs, Congressional Fire Services Institute• Peg Carson Education Specialist, Carson Associates Inc, Vision 20/20• Ed Comeau International Association of Fire Chiefs, Vision 20/20• Alexandra Furr Director, National Fire Data Center, U.S. Fire Administration

• Dr John Hall Jr. Fire Analysis and Research Division, National Fire Protection Association• Claire Kammer Manager, Government Affairs, Underwriters Laboratories

• Rikki Khanna Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission•

Arthur Lee Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission• Keith Lessner Vice President of Loss Control, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America

• Nicolette Makuson Directorate for Engineering Sciences, National Safety Council• Shivani Mehta Directorate for Engineering Sciences, Consumer Product Safety Commission• Suzanne Morton MBA Program Manager, SafeKids Worldwide• Sean Oberle Publisher/Owner, Product Safety Letter

• Paul Patty Sr. Research Engineer. Corporate Research. Underwriters Laboratories

• Jessica Shisler MPH, Health Education Specialist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Joscelyn Silsby Manager, Emergency Preparedness, American Red Cross• Woody Stratton Training Specialist, U.S. Fire Administration• Justin Wiley Director of External Relations, International Code Council• Scott Wolfson Deputy Public Affairs Director, Consumer Product Safety Commission

Note: This report summarizes the main points made by participants. It is not a transcript.

Attendees:

Meeting Date: September 10, 2008 Consumer Product

Meeting Location: Consumer Product Safety Commission Bethesda, MD,U.S.A.

Attachment F



18/23


19/23

19

• We would like to partner with another organization on a poll to determine how families prepare for fire

in their homes. How do they assess risk, what are their attitudes and behaviors regarding

preparedness, etc. The results will help us better shape our messaging.

Paul Patty - Underwriters Laboratories• We are conducting lost of validation testing regarding lightweight construction and how it reacts to a

fire. We are also looking at home furnishings, and how fires transition from smoldering to flaming.• We’ve finished our smoke characterization study, and are considering possible changes to UL217. We

have developed profiles of flaming fires, but smoldering fires are more difficult.• We hope to have a standard for polyurethane tests by early 2009.

Claire Kammer - Underwriters Laboratories• We’ve embarked on a study of furnishings as a whole system, rather than just looking at them as

piecemeal.

Ed Comeau - International Association of Fire Chiefs, Vision 20/20• We are very interested in next week’s International Residential Codes meeting in Minnesota regarding

residential sprinklers. The change we’re supporting requires a 2/3 vote; last year it received 56%, and

we’re hoping it will pass this year.• I.F.C. has issued a position paper on photo vs. ionization smoke alarms; our board has decided we

either need to counter the arguments about photo, or get ahead of them. First Alert has decided to do

photo; Kidde has a new technology. The current momentum is towards photo, as more communitiesare passing ordinances: VT, NY, MA, IN.• Although the science is flawed, the demonstration burns have been effective; without national

leadership, our side can’t gain traction against that public pressure. We’re not coordinated.

Suzanne Morton - SafeKids Worldwide• We have a new brochure on grandparents on fire and life safety.• We have a new brochure for parents of young children. It includes a growth chart for what to teach kids

about fire safety at each age. We were able to use U.S.F.A.’s coloring images to make the brochures

more interactive. Both are being sent out to coalition members.• We are holding the Safe Kids Child Injury Prevention Conference in DC on October 16-18. Details are

on our website.

Sean Carroll - Congressional Fire Services Institute• Congress passed the Campus Fire Safety Right to Know Act.• U.S.F.A. authorization has passed the house, but it’s stuck in the Senate. There is a possibility it can

clear the Senate before Congress adjourns.• We are unlikely to get an appropriations bill through though; a continuing resolution is far more likely.• The Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act is making progress.• We are working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) on legislation to ban novelty lighters.• The next Congress will have openings in the leadership of the fire conference; either Biden or McCain

will be going to the White House.• We are working on reauthorization of fire grants, and would welcome input on how to proceed.• The likelihood of a lame duck session depends on the results of the election. If McCain wins, it’s more

likely since he seems eager to start vetoing things.

Cathie Patterson - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program,

U.S. Department of Homeland Security• We’re trying to get our 2008 safety grant application off the ground. We have until September 2009 to

spend the money.• Watch our website; when it’s approved, we’ll offer more than 30 days to respond once it’s available.





20/23

20

Justin Wiley - International Code Council• In addition to the three-year update of the International Residential Code, we’re working on a bill to get

matching funds for jurisdictions to improve building code enforcement. It would support things like

training, staffing, and equipment. The bill has passed the House, but not the Senate.

Nancy Bill - Indian Health Service• Indian Health Service has funded 17 sleep safe sites with Head Start. We’re installing smoke alarms,

and expanding to include the homes of grandparents as well.

Peg Carson - Carson Associates, Vision 20/20

Vision 20/20 Presentation

(See accompanying presentation materials for more information.)

John Hall - National Fire Protection Association• I notice that this doesn’t include wild fires and vehicle fires. Vehicle fires account for a large number of

fatalities.

Meri-K Appy - Home Safety Council• We have a social marketing goal; it would be best if all of us could do the same thing the same way at

the same time. But we lack a leader in the effort, and we need dedicated funding. We need to do this in

a way that drives resources to divide and conquer the problem.

Ed Comeau - International Association of Fire Chiefs, Vision 20/20• We’ve modeled our work after the UK, which has included many non-traditional partners such as social

service organizations.

John Hall - National Fire Protection Association• The problem is that we can’t easily compel groups to follow, but even without a leader we could break

the task into pieces that interrelate. If groups self-select their tasks, they won’t pick wisely. What we

need is someone to split up the tasks in a coherent way.

Meri-K Appy - Home Safety Council• I’m an optimist. I think organizations can still pursue their own priorities.

Arthur Lee - Consumer Product Safety Commission

Nuisance Smoke Alarm Research:• We’re looking at the frequency of alarms. We’ve installed a mix of photoelectric, ionization, and dual

alarms in eight homes. We placed them five, ten, and twenty feet from the cooking area, disabled the

sound, and wired the alarms to a computer log for thirty days. Six of the eight homes are done.• The early data shows that ionization and dual sensor alarms that are five feet away trigger the most

often. At ten feet, the ionization alarm performs like the photoelectric at five feet. At twenty feet, the

alarms are even more similar.• The most nuisance alarms were at lunch; our hypothesis is that people cook less often at lunch and are

therefore inattentive or distracted. Oily foods and oily cooking methods produced the most alarms.• Since the households were chosen randomly, the results may be extrapolated to a wider population.• If you cook enough to trigger an alarm at ten feet, it’ll trigger at twenty feet.

• The second phase of the study will start in November with NIST. We’ll place alarms every two feet, andwill cook what we know sets them off.

Paul Patty - Underwriters Laboratories• U.L. instrumented an apartment in the 1990s and found that the best way to create particles when you

cook (and trigger smoke alarms) is to cook with a dirty oven.• Ionization alarms are susceptible to nuisance alarms close to the cooking area.• Smoke alarms don’t respond to gas; they respond to particles from combustion. This study suggests

keeping smoke alarms more than five feet from where you cook.





21/23

21

Meri-K Appy - Home Safety Council

Home Safety Council Activities Report:• We have been conducting home safety literacy programs for four years. We are focusing now on three

states – Tennessee, South Carolina, and Arkansas. We learned that although the locals want and use

the materials provided, they have difficulty sustaining their work as a coalition unless you fund

infrastructure.• Arkansas kept the coalition going because they have a history of working together. There is a strong

literacy group, and Jimmy Parks; they were able to bring their own money to the table.• Tennessee and South Carolina were unable to sustain the coalition, in part because the literacy and fire

groups didn’t work well together. The other problem is about who gets to be the boss.• We adapted because of this experience. We redesigned the materials to emphasize a go-it-alone model.

We learned that nobody reads, so instead we created video tools on DVD or the web. We also

considered Just in Time reading; nobody could work with a big book. We also compiled a report on

what worked.• Because these are hard-to-reach groups, we couldn’t use broad media outlets to spread our message.

This approach also allows us to tailor our materials and choose spokespeople who would be most

effective.• In June, mysafehome.org became the 2nd most visited part of our website, in part because of our

partnership with Good Housekeeping, which had a ten-page insert directing people to the website.• We will testify next week in Minneapolis at the IRC meeting regarding residential sprinklers.• We have a Fire Safety Grant to address the overlooked needs of pre-K children. We’re working with the

national Head Start and ProLiteracy to create materials in English and Spanish to give parents,teachers, and children. Our goal is to find out what works, especially with low-income parents.• We are partnering with IAFF on Fire Safety Month prevention and education activities. We’ve created a

DVD of mysafehome.org, which IAFF has delivered to firefighters around the county.• We’ve launched a scald and burn effort with the American Burn Foundation and the Federation of Burn

Foundations.

Ed Comeau - International Association of Fire Chiefs, Vision 20/20

I.F.C. Congressional Briefing Report: (including showing of a 17-minute video).• We briefed Congress yesterday about the Higher Education Act, which included the Campus Fire Safety

Right to Know Act.• House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) is optimistic about getting the Fire Sprinkler Incentive Act

through the House this year. (Sean Carroll noted that there are issues with House Energy and

Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell that make this less likely.)• We had sixty students meet with members of the House and Senate and their staffs, each accompanied

by the parent of a fire victim. The students thanked members for passing the Act, and talked about

concerns that the Department of Education may gut the intent of the Act during rule making.• We sent copies of our DVD to every fire department, college, and university. An initial cut was panned

by students, so we re-worked it and have gotten very good reviews.• The video also appears on a website we created to support the campaign, www.igot2know.org. Before

students can see the video, they must log-in and take a pre-test, and then take a post-test afterwards.

The website also has fast facts and information regarding burns and prevention.

John Hall - National Fire Protection Association

Smoke Alarm Messaging (Review of the messaging matrix)• The messages from twelve organizations were divided into 47 different topics• I hope that each organization looks at this and recognizes what they’d want to change.• There are few conflicts here. There are lots of variations on emphasis, wording, and acceptance of risk.• We could also develop a shared view of which messages are most important and try to harmonize them

regarding what people ought to do, supporting claims and facts, and exact language.• As organizations, we are all pretty close on the main issues, and on photoelectric vs. ionization.• For harmonization to succeed, will we have to refute the Fleming argument?



http://www.mysafehome.org/http://www.mysafehome.org/http://www.igot2know.org/http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.scribd.com/doc/256541145http://www.igot2know.org/http://www.igot2know.org/http://www.mysafehome.org/http://www.mysafehome.org/http://www.mysafehome.org/http://www.mysafehome.org/


22/23

22

Paul Patty - Underwriters Laboratories• This matrix suggests that there aren’t any real conflicts. There are differences in audience, and the

level of risk reduction.

Meri-K Appy - Home Safety Council• We can come to consensus on the most important points.• We are not aligned on the photoelectric/ionization issue, and that disconnect works against us.

Claire Kammer - Underwriters Laboratories• Since we are all within two degrees of one another, maybe we could issue a single white paper?• It’s not a consumer-driven issue. It’s a sexy story because it has conflict.• We’ve tried every way to say it, but it’s too confusing.

Suzanne Morton - SafeKids Worldwide• We have limited space on our materials; is this the issue that is most important?

Meri-K Appy - Home Safety Council• Consumers don’t care. If our audience was political, a white paper might have influence.• Is anyone willing to go to the media to refute this information? Are we sure that there isn’t any other

information that is hiding under a rock? And who refutes Fleming’s “science”?

Alexandra Furr - U.S. Fire Administration• When we discuss this, we get bogged down in details and fine points. We need to boil it down. U.S.F.A.

wants to put out the right message, not attack bad message.

John Hall - National Fire Protection Association• We have tried to explain that those demonstrations are non-representational, but those messages

haven’t worked. If they’re not effective, why harmonize them?

Paul Patty - Underwriters Laboratories• Either kind of smoke alarm does the minimum. We’re talking about aiming higher. This issue is a

backdoor to nuisance alarms.• Our message is to call for higher performance regardless of the technology.

Ed Comeau - International Association of Fire Chiefs, Vision 20/20• I.F.C. members need messages they can use after a burn when the media asks for a comment. Our

position paper was too wide-ranging.

John Hall - National Fire Protection Association• Ed needs short, self-contained points. N.F.P.A. wrote talking points, but it came to two pages…which is

too much.• It’s easier when you initiate messaging; in that case, the photo vs. ionization question isn’t critical. But

when you’re responding to a question or an incident, that kind of response won’t do.

Rik Khanna - Consumer Product Safety Commission• The fact is that most fire deaths occur in homes with no working alarm present. Our job should be to

get working alarms of any kind into homes.

Keith Lessner - Property Casualty Insurers Association of America• We need one message, or different messages for different audiences.

Woody Stratton - US Fire Administration• What is said to refute the other side? The first answer is that both ionization and photoelectric work.

We need someone to give the information/response to fire marshals. We need a gut reaction response.





23/23

Claire Kammer - Underwriters Laboratories• We’ve tried to get ahead of the issue (and not be reactive) but U.L. is painted as suspect. We have

been holding biweekly webinars on it.• Scientists tend to use phrases that don’t work in public.• Maybe we could create an informal coalition to share information , strategy, and message.

Alexandra Furr - U.S. Fire Administration• We’re not going to solve this today. No single message will squelch Fleming.

John Hall - National Fire Protection Association• Not a lot of organizations represented here would be comfortable or able to demonize the opposition.• We should keep the harmonization issue separate from the ionization/photoelectric issue. I can share

N.F.P.A.’s talking points document with everyone and get feedback.• As a next step, I will use the matrix to propose unified messages and prioritization of each of the 47

issues.

Next Meeting: December 16, 2008

Hosted by SafeKids Worldwide, 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 10th Floor.

Adjourn

Chief Joseph (Jay) Fleming

Chief Jay Fleming is widely regarded as the world’s leading expert on

smoke alarm technology. His tireless campaigning spanning over twenty

years has been instrumental in mandatory photoelectric legislation in

several U.S. States and municipalities and in Australia’s Northern Territory.

He is a member of UL217, America’s Smoke Alarm Standard.

His scientific research papers were used to educate Fire Fighter

organizations about the known defects with ionization smoke alarms. As a

result the International Association of Fire Fighters( IAFF - 300,000+ U.S.,

Canadian fire fighters and paramedics), and the Australasian Fire &

Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC - covers all Australian & New

Zealand Fire Brigades) ONLY promote photoelectric alarms. Both the

I.A.F.F. and A.F.A.C.do not recommend ionization technology, either stand-

alone or combined with a photo electric alarm.

Chief Fleming Testimonial

Cheif Fleming Testimonial by David Isaac,

Australia's leading Fire Safety Expert.

WFSF Report with Chief Fleming

Updated information about Chief Fleming

in the World Fire Safety Foundation Report:

‘SmokeAlarmWarning .org/wfsf.html

Deputy Chief Jay FlemingBoston Fire Dept, MA, U.S.A.

______________________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org/chieffleming_files/JosephMFlemingDIsaacTestimonial.pdfhttp://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org/chieffleming_files/JosephMFlemingDIsaacTestimonial.pdfhttp://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org/chieffleming_files/JosephMFlemingDIsaacTestimonial.pdfhttp://www.theworldfiresafetyfoundation.org/chieffleming_files/JosephMFlemingDIsaacTestimonial.pdf

us fire chief pleads with the cpsc to warn about ionization smoke alarms

Documents