ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, December 14, 1996 TAG: 9612160105
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAVE CHAPLIN
I HAVE BEEN following the developing story about the need for automatic fire-sprinkler systems in 12 high-rise dormitories at state-supported colleges (Dec. 7 Associated Press news article, ``Colleges: Sprinklers will cost $8.5 million''). I am quite impressed with the attention this story is getting and the swift action our fiscally conservative governor has taken in promising appropriations to remedy the "safety issue."
Some of these buildings are 10 to 20 years old, and the risk to life and safety has always been there. The risk has only increased with the additional numbers of students packed into each of these dorms each year. One might think that if an unprotected high-rise dorm full of bright and energetic young students hasn't already suffered a major catastrophe, it must be pretty safe. Wrong! It simply means the odds are now in favor of a disaster happening in the future, and all contributing factors are getting worse. However, right now isn't too late to hedge the bet against property and life loss in these school dorms. And the new attention by all is a good start.
The main point to consider is that no life has ever been lost in a fire under normal fire loads in a building with a properly operating automatic fire-sprinkler system. To the Virginia Tech officials who said they believe that even without sprinklers in the five dorms, they have a very safe fire-prevention and alert system in place, and to the one Tech official who said he didn't believe sprinklers dramatically improved safety in dorms, I say think again.
The most unpredictable fire hazard in all buildings is its occupants. Most fire protection and life safety in buildings is planned around a set of static, predictable factors. In most cases, even human behavior is taken for granted. How many calm, mature, reasonable young college students living in dorms do you know? (I am sure there are some.)
Automatic fire-sprinkler systems work because they provide immediate notification of - and containment or suppression of - a fire emergency. An often overlooked benefit is that they also reduce atmospheric toxicity and provide a safer and tenable environment through which occupants must exit and firefighting personnel must enter.
Nineteen students in seven separate incidents have died in America in fraternity house fires since 1976. Almost every tragedy had a common fire cause - improper and unsafe human habitation coupled with no or inadequate fire protection systems. These fraternity houses were probably thought of as easy to exit since they were not more than four stories in height. High-rise buildings present special dangers to occupants, as well as firefighting personnel.
More than 20 years ago, there was a popular movie that defined the problems encountered when building height exceeds the capability of firefighting forces. You probably remember its name as it became part of pop culture. But what did we learn? Remember watching the World Trade Center bombing on the news a few years ago? That was no movie and not really a "Towering Inferno" above grade. The biggest problem there was emergency egress. Whenever building height exceeds firefighting capability, six floors are as good as 60.
In 1993, Tech greatly enhanced its fire-safety program by instituting a program of inspection and maintenance of all of its fire protection systems, and I was privileged to be a part of that. But there is much more to be done there and at other state institutions concerning the implementation of a comprehensive fire, life-safety and emergency-action plan that meets or exceeds state and national standards.
Virginia has a negotiated Insurance Services Office fire protection rating of Class 6. This may have been done in the interest of saving taxpayer money on premiums, but it creates a disincentive to improve fire protection from current levels at all state facilities. Unfortunately, the best (and sometimes the only) way to improve fire and life safety in these buildings - in the shortest amount of time - is to create the kind of media attention this story about school dorms is getting and hope a politician of influence takes heed. At least on that account, some of our colleges have gotten lucky.
All Virginians should be pleased that public consciousness has been raised and our chief politician has responded to this burning issue. I don't know that making present and future residents of these dorms pay for essential life-safety improvements (that should have been installed when the building was built) is an equitable solution. Maybe all previous tenants of these buildings should also pitch in for the cost (not!). Any rise in costs to students or drain on affected school budgets make the affected school less competitive. An increased cost per student was calculated at $58. The property and life-saving systems in question should be installed without delay, at any cost.
Let us do more in the interest of public fire protection and life safety. It's an investment in our future that can reap incalculable rewards.
David Chaplin of Rural Retreat is a certified fire-protection specialist.
LENGTH: Medium: 87 linesby CNB