1. Defining Safety Through Dialogue

2. WELCOME! The 10th Anniversary Campus Fire Safety, Security & Risk Management Professional Development Conference & Expo Engineering Track Panel Discussion: “Permanent Solutions for Fires and Nuisance Alarms on Electric Ranges and Microwaves Ovens” Monday, March 4 th, 2013 Franklin Room C Simplex Room 1:00pm – 2:00pm MODERATED BY THE LIVE SAFE FOUNDATION

3. Welcome to our Panel Discussion Permanent Solutions for Fires and Nuisance Alarms on Electric Ranges and Microwaves Ovens Thank you for joining us! Welcome everyone – Jill, Mike & David Introducing the Live Safe Foundation

4. Partners in Prevention for Campus Safe Living SafeT-etips Hard Copies are available. If you would like to be added to the monthly email mailing list, please provide us your email address on the cards provided.

5. Let’s Get Started! It's time to begin the Panel Discussion… Welcome our Event Moderator

6. David Speaker - Moderator

7. Panel Topic The Em2 Panel will address: “ Permanent Solutions for Fires and Nuisance Alarms on Electric Ranges and Microwaves Ovens” Insurance, Fire, and Universities discuss the scope of the problem and the impact on schools and the surrounding community. Two Universities (Ohio University & University of Miami) will showcase their strategies that include engineered solutions that are permanently reducing and or eliminating both types of incidents.

8. Let’s meet our Panel

9. Introducing today’s Panel Line-up! Brian J. Foy – Willis of Ohio, Inc. Vice President, Commercial Property & Casualty Department Brent Auker – Ohio University, Athens, Ohio Fire Protection Engineer Environmental Health & Safety Christopher Hartnett – University of Miami, Florida Associate Director for Residential Life Steve Rucker – Sandusky Fire Department, Ohio Fire Safety Inspector, Bureau of Prevention & Risk Reduction

10. The Panel Commonality: The cooking fire problem in the U.S. NFPA stats  There was a civilian fire death every 208 minutes and a civilian fire injury every 30 minutes in 2011.  One home fire was reported every 85 seconds.  Cooking caused: two of every five (42 percent) reported home fires, one of every seven (15 percent) home fire deaths, two of every five (37 percent) home fire injuries.  There are 155,400 reported cooking related fires each year, 390 deaths, 4,800 injuries and $756M in direct property damage.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission adds that there are 4.7 million unreported cooking fires annually and $7 billion in additional indirect costs annually.

11. The Problem on Campuses Campus fire facts  The number of reported fires in campus housing increased 34% from 3,200 in 1980 to 4,290 in 2006. In comparison, structure fires of all types in the US declined 51% during the same period.  On average 3,800 campus housing fires occur each year, resulting in 5 deaths, 50 injuries and $26 million in property loss annually.  Cooking accounts for 83% of all campus housing fires.  Student residential housing poses the main life safety threat on and off American campuses. The primary reasons include:  Lack of familiarity with fire safety practices.  Lack of familiarity with cooking.  Inattentiveness when cooking.  Misuse of alcohol. Source: Live Safe Foundation, NFPA, USFA and the Centre for Campus Fire Safety

12. Apartment and Kitchen Fire Concerns Insurance Industry Responses for Prevention Technologies By Brian Foy Willis of Ohio, Inc.

13. 1. Kitchen Fire Losses – A single kitchen fire loss can be thousands to millions—especially if the apartment is not sprinklered. – Kitchen fires are becoming more prevalent in habitational facilities—Student housing, aging population, low income housing. – Damage is often not limited to the unit, it also involves surrounding units, the floor, and every floor above and below it. A single unit fire may be $30K, the surrounding damages and clean up due to fire and water damage and loss of rents can be in the hundreds of thousands! – Residential sprinklers are invaluable in terms of overall life safety to occupants and to help reduce overall loss from an unchecked fire. However because of the proximity nature of unattended cooking fires injuries because of resident’s intervention, and damage to the area still can occur, with water damage sometimes contributing to the overall loss even in the event of a relatively small fire. – According to NFPA in 60% of injuries or deaths occurring from unattended cooking fires in fully sprinklered residences the fire never got large enough for the nearest sprinkler head to activate. Again this is due to the proximity nature of unattended cooking fires. – Nuisance alarms or (smoke scares) and subsequent evacuations can also contribute to potential injuries and liabilities. – Preventing the fire to begin with is the most economical and surest way to reduce costs and reduce injuries.

14. 2. Perspective of the Insurance Industry – We are looking for proven technologies. – Some underwriters are looking for industry studies on technologies before they will offer rate reductions. The Consumer Products Safety commission has now released a study verifying that (HEHLT) or high end heat limiting technology is a commercially viable method to reduce these fires. There are now a number of other independent studies available that reinforce (HEHLT) as a viable prevention technology. Along with the CPSC, these studies include NFPA, Vision 20/20 and the International Fire Chiefs Association.

15. 3. Life Safety Issues – What if I make the decision to do nothing in my apartments, a fire ensues and multiple injuries take place? – Is my culpability raised because of this? Could someone come back at me for making this decision? – Eliminating these fires and nuisance alarms does more than limit damages—it protects residents, and reduces liability for the University.

16. Questions from the Audience? Thank you, Brian!

17. Nuisance Alarm Reduction on Campus Safe-T-Sensor Presentation By Brent Auker Fire Protection Engineer Ohio University

18. Program Scope - Problem Majority of nuisance alarms from burnt food “ When I hear the alarm go off, I tend to shrug it off because it’s almost never real” Ohio University sophomore student

19. Goal: Reduce nuisance alarms to protect our students and reduce costs Educate our students (esp. freshman) - proper cooking safety Prevent student apathy to alarms – always real Create a safer environment for all – you are only as safe as your neighbor Maximize student productivity – fewer interruptions Fire Fighter safety – fewer responses Work with the community to be better citizens – reduce costs If the Safe-T-Sensors could eliminate 100 runs over a three-year period, the safety and resulting savings in time/money would be significant for everyone. Program Scope – Goal

20. Objectives: Find a solution/combination of solutions to reduce nuisance alarms: 1.Partner with the local Fire Department to determine the nature of the problem:  Analyze FD run data.  Analyze campus run data and causes.  Assess impact of the problem and best way to address it. 2.Identify an engineering solution to address the root cause of the problem:  We found a product called the Safe-T-Sensor for microwave ovens.  We began by testing it to ensure it would meet our requirements. 3.Apply for an FP&S grant – we were successful. 4.Develop a comprehensive installation program. 5.Develop and execute a comprehensive educational program. 6.Continue to maintain program Program Scope - Objective

21. Implementation - Education Residential Living staff met with all residence hall students by floor to educate them on the Safe-T- Sensors and their role in Residential Living safety program.  Every resident heard the safety message from the residence hall staff.  Read it in the Health & Safety brochure.  And are reminded each time they see a poster on the residence hall bulletin boards.  Reinforced in the Campus Connections newsletter regularly. An inspection of proper installation/operation of all Safe-T-Sensors takes place during quarterly routine inspections, winter and spring breaks inspections and summer inspections:  Faulty sensors will be replaced.  If a Safe-T-Sensor is found missing, the resident will be billed for the cost of replacement.  If a resident disables the Safe-T-Sensor from his/her microwave, they will be found in violation of the Student Code of Conduct resulting in University Judiciaries action.

22. A fire incident data study was completed by Ohio University’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) and the Athens Ohio Fire Department (AFD): AFD run data and Ohio U statistical records from 2007 – 2010 were analyzed. Specifically, number of city runs, campus runs and identified burnt food runs. It was concluded that during the period : AFD made approximately 770 runs annually. Approximately 250 runs annually were to the campus. Burnt food events in microwave ovens were the leading cause (22%). It was estimated that there was a direct cost of more than $2,000 for each run. Indirect Costs- evacuation of building, Response of personnel, Paperwork Research - Defining the Problem

23. In the first 14 weeks of 2010 the AFD responded to the University 38 times.  Of those 38 runs 10 were burnt food in microwave ovens that activated the buildings fire system resulting in an evacuation.  During the same 14 weeks of 2011, in the same residential halls with Safe-T-sensors installed, the AFD responded to campus 28 times with 1 being related to burnt food in a microwave oven. The result of the Safe-T-Sensor installations and cooking fire safety education was a 92% reduction in same type runs to campus compared to 2010. Ohio University believes that the education provided at the time of installation not only helped reduce the number of burnt microwave food alarms but resulted in a greater awareness of fire safety as reflected by the reduction of total runs for the first quarter of 2011. The University has now installed 4,479 sensors and the University expects this trend to continue. Short Term Results

24. Ohio University Environmental Health and Safety plans to continue its efforts and ongoing education to new students each year to stress the importance of these devices and of the awareness of fire safety. Next Steps

25. Learning Process Educate all residential staff Custodial staff follow yearly routines Different vent systems on microwaves Allow enough time twice a year to inspect proper placement of sensors Use two-sided tape under magnet Never underestimate students creativity

27. Universities/ Colleges with Safe-T-sensor™

28. Questions from Audience? Thank you, Brent!

29. Safe-T-element® Cooking System By Christopher Hartnett – University of Miami, Florida Associate Director for Residential Life Program Scope Implementation Education Research & Defining the Problem Short Term Results Next Steps Learning Process

30. Successful Student Advocate Spotlight: The University of Miami students take their safety seriously. Residents living in the University Village at U of Miami have the Safe-T-element® Cooking System installed in their kitchens to help prevent cooking fires. The students produced and developed a Cooking Fire Safety PSA video that highlighted the dangers of fire and the value of fire prevention, safety education, and engineered solutions like the Safe-T-element®. Watch Video see link belowWatch Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKZjm2jB87c&feature=youtu.be&hd=1

31. Questions from the Audience? Thank you, Chris!

32. First Responder Perspective By Steve Rucker – Sandusky Fire Department (Ohio) Fire Safety Inspector, Bureau of Prevention & Risk Reduction Engineering Solutions for Residential Cooking Fires and Nuisance Alarm Reduction Impact on the community

33. Letter in the Ithacajournal.com June 17 th 2008 False alarms increase costs for IFD, taxpayers. According to Ithaca college data, in the 2007-08 school year, 135 alarms went off. The fire department reports that in 2007 the department responded to 131 false alarms on campus, and 222 calls in total. In comparison, 2007 saw the fire department respond to 564 total calls and 326 false alarms at Cornell; 2,773 calls and 919 false calls in the city of Ithaca; and 729 calls and 105 false calls in the town of Ithaca. The educational programs that the college has implemented haven’t had an apparent reducing effect. The number of calls to Ithaca’s campus(Ithaca college) has risen steadily, from 158 in 2002 to 222 last year. “In 2007, every fire call cost the fire department at least $576.00”

34. The Hidden Cost of Alarms for he Fire Service Increased risk of injuries for firefighters Reduced readiness in terms of coverage for the community. Over taxing the resources of the Fire Service. Can cause dangerous but necessary changes in basic response criteria.

35. High-end Heat Limiting Technology (HEHLT) HEHLT for electric coiled cooking devices is being made mandatory and/or law in jurisdictions throughout North America. Stovetop cooking operations can quickly reach temperatures that greatly exceed the auto-ignition temperature for cooking oils and common household materials. These high temperatures are not necessary for safe, efficient and effective cooking. HEHLT consists of a device that is hard wired (tamper proof) into electric coil ranges that limits the high-end cooking temperature to help prevent auto- ignition of common cooking & household materials. Resolutions in support of HEHLT have recently been passed by numerous state and provincial fire chief and fire marshal associations (11 US states and right across Canada).

36. Example of a prevention engineered s o l u t i o n t h a t i s a f f o r d a b l e & v i a b l e.  The Safe-T-element® cooking system for electric coiled ranges is engineered to help prevent cooking fires & save energy by delivering high- end heat limiting technology.  This technology is being used in Multi-residential housing applications and comes pre-equipped on new ranges or as a retrofit for existing ranges.

37. The System Limits the High End Temperature of the Burner Elements Cast iron plate & ThermocoupleControl Board …helping to prevent auto-ignition of common cooking & household materials.

38. Questions from the Audience? Thank you, Steve!

39. Guest Moderator - Summary Points - Mike Halligan University of Utah THANK YOU TO OUR PANELISTS!

40. Group Discussion - Open for Q & A

41. We value Feedback- To continue this dialog, we invite you to spend some time sharing your feedback and help us learn more about this topic through your responses. The Panel participants thoughtfully clarified the topics discussed in this Panel Discussion and appreciate your feedback. - Note cards on the tables - End of the conference “Quick Survey” Thank you.

42. Partners in Prevention

43. Thank you for joining us!