By Charlie Boyte
Are we doing enough to protect the families, workers, and tenants who occupy structures that have been affected or damaged by fire? Given the modern materials used in buildings today, how do we effectively evaluate if, or when, a structure is safe to occupy following a fire event?
In our district, we have traditionally left those questions to our building officials and insurance companies. Up until now, I have believed this process provided a reasonable measure of risk management for our customers. However, when following up after a recent structure fire, I was not comfortable that we were doing the right thing for the people we are supposed to protect.
Over my 25-plus years in the fire service I have learned that, like many of you reading this article, the health and safety risks presented by fires are ever-changing. Significant research is ongoing to evaluate this ever-changing environment, and its results suggest there is a greater need to be vigilant in addressing the risks those exposed to the products of combustion face.
There are some really good reasons for this vigilance. In our evolving world, some very nasty products are generated as a result of fires. The composition of fire smoke and its by-products is changing daily as new and improved consumer products are introduced into our homes and businesses. Research on the long-term consequences of these products is in its infancy, but modern science and testing has allowed us to gain a much better understanding of how these materials combine during fire events. It is difficult to define the levels of lethal gases and carcinogens that will be present in fire smoke today because of fire temperatures, exposure, and other circumstances that create fire smoke and gases result in a broad range of chemical reactions and chemical bonds; timeframes for maximum exposures are relatively short and may dissipate before testing is conducted; levels of containment are broadly varied and difficult to analyse; and the products that create the compounds during fires are ever-changing. In fact, we are learning the pyrolysis of materials that are exposed to heat can create serious risks even without a fire event.
We understand more thoroughly how deadly smoke is dispersed throughout a building during structure fires. We also know that some of the more commonly known substances in fire smoke are Carbon Monoxide (CO), Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN), Hydrogen Chloride, and Acrolein. Most of today’s building materials and household products contain hydrocarbons in one form or another, usually in plastics, glues, and fabrics. These materials are readily transformed into a variety of states when heated. When incomplete combustion occurs without an adequate oxygen supply, fires will typically produce large amounts of hydrocarbons in a gaseous form, most of which are highly volatile or poisonous.
Generally the heavier hydrocarbons will condense into tar-like deposits in and around the structure as the smoke is dispersed. Today we have a much better understanding of how the concoction of lethal compounds and gases in smoke can bind to carbon deposits through molecular attraction. Therefore, we can also conclude that the fire smoke, gases, and carbon deposits in and around the fire area create a hazardous situation for people and animals, both during and after the fire.
The fire service has been aware of the consequences of exposure to smoke for decades. It is only in recent years, however, that the fire service has started to address this issue from a worker protection perspective. We face many new challenges from the by-products created when modern materials catch fire. Products found in the houses of earlier years were generally made from natural materials. Smoke from these products caused firefighters to choke, gag, and vomit upon exposure, but generally firefighters survived the exposure unless they were overwhelmed by CO. I am confident if we had these fallen firefighters’ tissues as evidence today, we would find that smoke had often killed them slowly over a period of years. Today without the protection of a self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), firefighters are lucky if they get a few short minutes after smoke exposure before they are overcome by toxins and gases. If they are lucky enough to survive the exposure, there is a very high probability those products will result in cancers or respiratory and circulatory illnesses in the future.
There has been significant research done over the past two decades in an effort to clearly prove that fire smoke causes cancers in firefighters. Thanks to that work, operational policies and procedures have been revised, and the fire service has stepped up efforts to train, outfit, and decontaminate exposed firefighters. How do we provide that same protection for the inhabitants of fire-exposed buildings?
This question was highlighted after a recent experience I had following a residential fire in my area. The incident involved a residential fire, but the example could apply to a wide variety of structures. The fire resulted in significant damage to a room and its contents. It started in a laundry appliance and was contained to the room of origin by the first in crew. The fire involved a substantial fuel load that included plastics and materials stored in the laundry room area. Structural damage was limited to the drywall and window used for ventilation, but smoke caused heavy damage throughout the house.
The owner was formally advised of the hazards from fire smoke, and was provided with a recommendation to hire a fire remediation expert to deal with the smoke damage. Much to my dismay and against our best advice (including two follow-up meetings with the owner), I drove by the house a couple of weeks later and found the family cleaning out the fire room and washing household items with little or no personal protective equipment (PPE). The situation really bothered me, so I went to the building department to save the homeowners from possibly years of suffering and dealing with the health effects of exposure to products of combustion.
As noted previously, the products of combustion leave behind a variety of residues in the structure long after the fire department leaves the scene. These days, the risks to the health and safety of future occupants are further compounded by modern fire suppression techniques. After we leave the scene, we know the residues left behind include water, and often surfactants such as Class A foams. We also know fire creates a broad variety of chemical compounds deposited by fire smoke, all of which are known to cause mold, fungi, building degradation, pulmonary and circulatory disorders, and cancers.
Therefore, it would seem critical to public safety that there are reliable guidelines and regulations to mitigate post-fire risks before occupants are allowed back into the structure. In today’s world, we monitor air quality with four gas and HCN detectors and work in PPE to protect our firefighters from these hazards. How can we be assured this same level of safety is provided to our customers?
I am sure the homeowner I have referred to above is not the first person to undertake the job of fire restoration on his own. In fact, I found there are no qualifications required to do fire remediation work despite the significant hazards. Certainly, from a worker protection perspective, contractors are obligated to abide by acts and regulations. But if building and fire officials have no guidelines to measure the risk present, how can they possibly monitor the effectiveness of fire damage remediation, or the PPE required? Without these measuring tools, how can we be confident in allowing occupancy when fire restoration is complete?
In my research I could not find any regulations that specifically address performance data and standards for fire damage remediation. I searched the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and there is certainly a plethora of material pertaining to the management of environmental hazards and hazardous materials. I could not find a standard in NFPA, however, that could address fire scene remediation.
Following my search in NFPA standards, I decided to turn to the remediation industry for some answers. I called a few restoration companies and asked what practices are implemented to protect the people we serve from the harmful products of combustion. The answers I got were not reassuring. Certainly I found that the levels of monitoring and expertise are dependent on the contractor. In some cases, restoration contractors enlist the services of environmental consultants to sign off on the building, but generally remediation contractors “follow best practices” and use “appropriate methods” to ensure the building is cleaned in an appropriate manner. I did not hear the statement “free from harmful substances” in any of those conversations. That led me to some more research to understand what “best practices” and “appropriate methods” meant. That research led to the following information:
In North America there are many companies that specialize in fire restoration services. These companies typically work for insurers. In Canada, specifically in the Province of British Columbia (BC), there is an association of restoration contractors called the British Columbia Association of Restoration Contractors (BCARC). Following is an excerpt from the BCARC Web site. “BCARC is the first association in North America devoted exclusively to issues of workplace safety in the restoration contractor industry. BCARC enjoys the support of the majority of companies in the BC restoration contractor industry (as measured by payroll). BCARC is committed to eliminating or reducing workplace injury and disease by promoting workplace safety training.”
The Restoration Industry Association (RIA) has 1,100 members in Canada, the US, and other countries worldwide, according to a recent review of its website. The RIA website states, “The RIA is the oldest and largest non-profit, professional trade association dedicated to providing leadership and promoting best practices through advocacy, standards, and professional qualifications for the restoration industry.”
From the statements and information above, we can clearly surmise that there are established practices for restoration work. Since the fire service and restoration industries have identified serious hazards to workers in fire-damaged structures, and since both industries have initiated steps to address the hazards presented to their own workforces, it seems clear to me that our customers are entitled to the same protection.
So although there are established practices, there are no regulations I could identify that limit the consequences residual products pose on our customers. In fact, what I found was that there is no requirement to use a certified contractor at all. Also, “best practices” is a hypothetical concept with no clear supporting science or regulations to enforce the conditions that must be met to sign off on fire damage remediation. Fire remediation work is self-regulated by restoration contractors and the insurers that enlist their services through customer satisfaction. This oversight does not necessarily address the long-term safety of building occupants. This system of oversight appears grossly inadequate given our changing environment.
The hazards left behind after we leave the scene are not only bad for our customers, but they can also open the door to future litigation. It appears that fire-damaged buildings may be repaired, cleaned, and resold without the training and expertise required to ensure the work is done safely, and in a manner that protects future inhabitants. I believe fire service and building officials need concrete measures to ensure fire-damaged buildings are safe for occupation before releasing them back to their owners. If you have developed a system in your area that addresses these issues, please take a few minutes to answer the following questions so I can compile the information and share it with the readers in a future article:
- What is the regulatory process for reoccupation of fire-damaged structures in your area if there is no structural damage, and smoke and water damage is the only consequence of the fire?
- Who is the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ) for remediation projects in your area?
- Does the AHJ require a registered professional to sign off on the remediation project before allowing occupancy?
- Have you developed a system to release the building to the owner or insurer after a fire that allows you to feel confident that the family, tenant, or workers that will inhabit that structure in the future will be safe from the products of combustion and suppression residue in that act?
I would value your suggestions or solutions and be pleased to share any information collected. Please send your comments to chief@penderfire.ca or through the contacts listed at www.penderfire.org
Charlie Boyte is a 26-year fire service veteran, spending 12 of those years as chief for Pender Island Fire Rescue (PIRF), British Columbia, Canada. PIFR encompasses three stations with nine pieces of apparatus including three type 1 engines, three speciality/rescue vehicles, one tender, one utility pickup, and one 1972 engine used for fire prevention. Boyte has a Level 3 fire investigation certificate from the Canadian Fire Investigation School. He received his CFO Professional Designation from the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs in 2010.
