1 P 1.17 Lightning Safety and Outdoor Stadiums Event Managers Should

P 1.17 Lightning Safety and Outdoor Stadiums Event managers should consider the safety of spectators when lightning threatens a large outdoor gathering. Joel Gratz1, Ryan Church2, Erik Noble1 15 November 2004 1 Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder 2 MBA Program, Leeds School of Business, University of Colorado, Boulder. 1.) Introduction Large outdoor stadiums face a significant and The authors attended the University of growing vulnerability to lightning due to increased size Colorado’s football game at Denver’s Invesco Field on and frequency of events. This growth is not paralleled in Saturday, 20 August 2003. For this highly contentious the knowledge and management of spectator safety. To game between intra-state rivals Colorado State and the date, there have been few casualties in the United University of Colorado, Invesco Field provided a neutral States from direct lightning strikes to a stadium or from site and the capacity to accommodate large crowds. the mass movement of spectators when lightning The official stadium attendance for that night was 76, threatens. However, if no further action is taken, 219 people. stadium managers are overlooking an opportunity to During the third quarter, lightning lit-up the prevent a potential disaster as the probability of a tragic southern sky as heavy rains blanketed the stadium. A event continues to increase while the costs of public address announcement stated that the game was intervention remain substantially low. This paper will suspended due to lightning, and all players, coaches, use Collegiate Division-I football stadiums as a proxy for and stadium personnel on the field immediately ran for all large outdoor stadiums due to their large capacity, cover. Remarkably, during this 30-45 minute delay, high attendance rates, and event frequency. stadium management did not provide any instructions to spectators. Many crowded the exit ramps and 2.) Growing Vulnerability concourses to escape the downpour while others Each year, attendance at Collegiate Division-I remained in their seats during the storm. The game football games increases. The total attendance, eventually resumed with no reported injuries to players including neutral site games and bowl games, increased or spectators resulting from the storm. Yet, the authors from 29,258,933 in 2000 to 34,647,132 in 2003, ~18% wondered why the event managers gave no warning growth in four years. This growth is perpetuated by the and took no action to protect the 76,125 spectators from constant demand for seats and its positive return on the dangers of lightning. investment for stadium expansions. Another reason for A review of lightning casualty cases identified a the growth in attendance at Division-I college football woman who was struck as an off-field spectator at a games is an increase in the frequency of events. concert held in Washington D.C.’s Robert F. Kennedy Including neutral site and bowl games, there were 776 stadium on 6 June 1998 (Milzman 1999). Stadium home games across the 117 teams in Division-I football officials evacuated more than 50,000 spectators shortly in 2003, a significant increase from the 665 games in after that strike. This event demonstrates the reality that 2000. The 15% increase in games is due to more bowl lightning can strike and injure spectators in outdoor games and the addition of 3 teams to D-I football since stadiums. Furthermore, experiences at Invesco Field 2000 (NCAA 2004). Because Division-I football games and RFK stadium reveal a lack of consensus and generate large revenues, it is reasonable to assume that expertise when dealing with lightning safety procedures attendance will continue to increase. for spectators en masse. In addition to event frequency, crowd density is an overwhelming factor in lighting safety policies. Division-I college football games have especially high CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Joel Gratz, attendance averages as a percent of capacity. Of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, 117 teams representing Division-I football, 19 (16%) of University of Colorado/CIRES, 1333 Grandview Ave, them have reported 100% or higher attendance at home Campus Box 488, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0488 games through the 2003 season. In addition, 45 (38%) E-mail: [email protected] of schools averaged between 90-100% capacity (NCAA 1 2004). The frequency of NCAA Division-I football The National Association of Athletic Trainers games is nothing near that of Major League Baseball (NAAT) position statement on lightning safety during (MLB) with 30 teams and 162 games each athletic and recreation events provides detailed (approximately 2400 games per season). However, the guidelines to aid in developing a lightning safety policy crowd density at MLB games averages only 61% of for specific locations. Yet, the lightning safety guidelines capacity through the 2002/2003 season (Ballpark Digest provided by the NAAT are specific only when dealing 2003) whereas the majority of NCAA Division-I stadiums with smaller-scale fields and facilities. When these average 90-100% of capacity. If a stadium is relatively guidelines address the issue of “extremely large athletic empty, it is easier for spectators to seek shelter. events,” their guidelines are very general, advising an Additionally, there is a smaller chance of lightning hitting integrated approach with “weather forecasts, real-time a fan in a less crowded stadium. thunderstorm data, a weather watcher, and the flash-to- bang count (discussed later) to aid in decision making” 3.) Risks to Spectators (Walsh 2000). Most literature mirrors these non-specific According to the International Association of recommendations concerning lightning safety and large Assembly Managers’ (IAAM) Safety and Security Task events and does not provide specific mitigation/crowd Force, an ‘emergency situation’ is, “…any incident, management suggestions. Large amounts of situation, or occurrence that could affect the unconnected knowledge exist on lightning behavior and safety/security of occupants…of the facility.” These protection, safer locations for people, and crowd control. incidents may include: A synthesis of this information does not exist in any • Medical emergencies official form. • Fire/fire alarm The National Oceanic and Atmospheric • Bomb threat/explosion Administration (NOAA) makes a concerted effort in • Mechanical/structural failure lightning safety education with its summer “Lightning • Civil Disturbance Safety Awareness Week. Yet again, this program does • Hazardous materials release not address issues relating to lightning safety for large • Terrorism crowds even though a promotional video about lightning • Building evacuation safety airs in Washington D.C.’s RFK stadium (the same • Natural disasters/severe weather stadium where the woman was struck in 1998) at the beginning of summer soccer games. The development of emergency plans (e.g. fire safety) is The lack of specific policies addressing required to meet legal statutes and recommended to lightning safety at large stadiums may be due to meet the professional standards and expectations of inadequate assumptions of event managers. They may providing a safe, non-threatening environment for the assume that they cannot protect their facility from facility occupants (IAAM 2002). During an emergency lightning and that the evacuation of an entire facility is situation, the responsibility of fan safety falls upon not a reasonable response to the threat. Converse to stadium management. Stadium managers are equipped these assumptions, measures to protect a facility and its with the resources to communicate and coordinate with occupants are rather inexpensive compared with the local authorities to identify a possible emergency cost of large construction projects, perhaps as low as situation and to conduct a response. Emergency tens of thousands of dollars for a large stadium (C. situations occur very infrequently but may develop Andrews 2003, personal communication). Furthermore, quickly and with little warning. without a well-planned lightning evacuation procedure, In terms of lightning, spectators will still attend the uncontrolled movement/panic of a crowd attempting a football game with thunderstorms in the forecast. to seek shelter has the potential to harm many more Most spectators assume (correctly) that the chance of people than the few that could experience a direct harm lightning occurring over the stadium during game time is from a lightning strike. quite low. With this assumption, spectators enter the Note: The authors stress that spectators face short- stadium and surrender any access to real-time warnings term weather risks beyond that of lighting and at other of thunderstorms (with the exception of the minority of large gatherings not necessarily within stadiums. It is spectators with wireless weather access via a cell hoped that this paper’s focus on developing a lighting phone/PDA). Therefore, it is the responsibility of safety policy for stadiums will lead to the development of stadium management to monitor any lightning activity. other severe weather safety policies (e.g. for hail and Surprisingly, lightning as an emergency tornadoes) for stadiums as well as for other outdoor situation at outdoor stadiums does not receive a high venues. level of attention, most likely due to the isolated nature of lightning incidents. Natural hazards such as 4.) The Lightning Threat tornadoes, hurricanes, and earthquakes receive mass Many of

Load more